Advertisement

Outcomes of endoscopic transcanal type 1 cartilage tympanoplasty

  • Doğukan ÖzdemirEmail author
  • Abdulkadir Özgür
  • Gökhan Akgül
  • Mehmet Çelebi
  • Dursun Mehmet Mehel
  • Tuğba Yemiş
Otology
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

We aimed to evaluate air–bone GAP (ABG), graft success and hearing gain according to the size and location of perforation in patients who underwent endoscopic transcanal type 1 cartilage tympanoplasty due to the tympanic membrane perforation and chronic otitis media.

Methods

The 104 patients (52 male and 52 female) who underwent endoscopic transcanal type 1 cartilage tympanoplasty, were evaluated retrospectively. Tragal cartilage grafts were utilized in all patients. Perforation size/location, duration of surgery, pre-operative and post-operative (6th month) average ABG, and pure-tone audiometric results (at 500–1000–2000–4000 Hz) as well as overall graft success were evaluated.

Results

The mean duration of surgery was 45.60 ± 17.39 min. Perforations were most frequently located in anterior quadrant with moderate sized. The post-operative air-conduction results were significantly improved at 500–1000–2000–4000 Hz frequencies. Similarly, pre-operative air-conduction pure-tone average (PTA) (35.36 ± 11.9 dB) was significantly decreased (22.34 ± 7.9 dB) after postoperative 6 months (p ≤ 0.001). The overall graft success rate was 93.2%. Moreover, pre-operative mean ABG (19.82 ± 7.4 dB) was significantly decreased (9.05 ± 4.3 dB) after postoperative 6 months (p ≤ 0.001).

Conclusions

Endoscopic transcanal type 1 cartilage tympanoplasty achieved a high graft success rate, and improved hearing results, regardless of the perforations' location and size. Endoscopic tympanoplasty provides high patient safety and comfort in middle-ear surgery by wide visualization, easy applicability, short-operation duration, low complication risk, and less invasive approach.

Keywords

Tympanoplasty Endoscopic ear surgery Cartilage graft Tympanic membrane perforation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Institutional Review Board protocol approval number: 141-2018. Institutional Review Board protocol approval number date: 11.09.2018

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Wick CC, Arnaoutakis D, Kaul VF, Isaacson B (2017) Endoscopic lateral cartilage graft tympanoplasty. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 157(4):683–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Khan MM, Parab SR (2016) Endoscopic cartilage tympanoplasty: a two-handed technique using an endoscope holder. Laryngoscope 126(8):1893–1898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tseng CC, Lai MT, Wu CC, Yuan SP, Ding YF (2016) Endoscopic transcanal myringoplasty for anterior perforations of the tympanic membrane. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 142(11):1088–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Choi N, Noh Y, Park W et al (2017) Comparison of endoscopic tympanoplasty to microscopic tympanoplasty. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 10(1):44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garcia LD, Moussalem GF, Andrade JS et al (2016) Transcanal endoscopic myringoplasty: a case series in a university center. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 82(3):321–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tan HE, Santa Maria PL, Eikelboom RH, Anandacoomaraswamy KS, Atlas MD (2016) Type I tympanoplasty meta-analysis: a single variable analysis. Otol Neurotol 37(7):838–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ayache S (2013) Cartilaginous myringoplasty: the endoscopic transcanal procedure. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270(3):853–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Salviz M, Bayram O, Bayram AA et al (2015) Prognostic factors in type I tympanoplasty. Auris Nasus Larynx 42(1):20–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dündar R, Kulduk E, Soy FK et al (2014) Endoscopic versus microscopic approach to type 1 tympanoplasty in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 78(7):1084–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee SY, Lee DY, Seo Y, Kim YH (2019) Can Endoscopic Tympanoplasty Be a Good Alternative to Microscopic Tympanoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 25:145–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nassif N, Berlucchi M, de Zinis LO (2015) Tympanic membrane perforation in children: endoscopic type I tympanoplasty, a newly technique, is it worthwhile? Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 79(11):1860–1864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaya I, Benzer M, Uslu M, Bilgen C, Kirazli T (2018) Butterfly cartilage tympanoplasty long-term results: excellent treatment method in small and medium sized perforations. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 11(1):23CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OtorhinolaryngologyUniversity of Health SciencesSamsunTurkey
  2. 2.Department of OtorhinolaryngologySamsun Training and Research HospitalSamsunTurkey

Personalised recommendations