Sutureless Tragal Cartilage Island Tympanoplasty: Our Experience

  • George Mullonkal VargheseEmail author
  • P. Hafees Abdullah
  • Nelwin Jerald Sabu
Original Article


To evaluate graft take up and hearing improvement using the technique of tragal cartilage island in COM-mucosal type. Prospective study. A total of 258 type 1 tympanoplasty surgeries were done using tragal cartilage island graft from December 2013, to December 2015; in Jubilee Mission Medical College and Research Institute with a follow up of 1 year. Inclusion criteria—all the patients undergoing type 1 tympanoplasty for chronic otitis media (mucosal type, inactive) with an intact ossicular chain by the senior author. The youngest patient was 6 years old and the oldest was 64 years. This pattern was selected for getting a uniform pattern even though cartilage tympanoplasty can be done in other forms of COM also. Graft take up in our study was found to be 96.12% in 1 year of follow up. Closure of tympanic membrane was achieved in 248 of 258 cases. None of the patients showed retraction pockets or cholesteatoma during follow up. The average pre-op AB gap was 21.62 dB which was lowered to 4.22 dB post op. The mean gain in hearing was 17.37 dB. It is worthwhile to consider tragal cartilage island graft as an alternative to temporalis fascia.


Tympanoplasty Cartilage island graft Chronic otitis media-mucosal type 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

This study has been performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was taken from all the patients.


  1. 1.
    De Freitas MR, De Oliveira TC (2014) The role of different types of grafts in tympanoplasty. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 80:275–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dornhoffer J (2003) Cartilage tympanoplasty: indications, techniques, and outcomes in A 1,000-patient series. Laryngoscope 113(11):1844–1856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Seta E et al (2010) Cartilage tympanoplasty: how to reduce surgery time. J Laryngol Otol 124(7):784–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kevin Ho K-H, Katzenmeyer K(1999) TITLE: Tympanoplasty SOURCE: grand rounds presentation. The University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, Department of Otolaryngology DATE: June 9, 1999Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cavaliere M et al (2009) Tragal cartilage in tympanoplasty: anatomic and functional results in 306 cases. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 29(1):27PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Onal K et al (2012) Functional results of temporalis fascia versus cartilage tympanoplasty in patients with bilateral chronic otitis media. J Laryngol Otol 126(1):22–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aidonis I, Robertson TC, Sismanis AS (2005) Cartilage shield tympanoplasty: a reliable technique. Otol Neurotol 26(5):838–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tek A et al (2012) Audiological and graft take results of cartilage reinforcement tympanoplasty (a new technique) versus fascia. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngol 269(4):1117–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coelho DH et al (2012) Cartilage tympanoplasty in smokers. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 121(10):657–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ahmed S et al (2013) Chondroperichondrial clip myringoplasty: a new technique for closure of tympanic membrane perforations. J Laryngol Otol 127(6):562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Şahan M et al (2014) Factors affecting success and results of cartilage-perichondrium island graft in revision tympanoplasty. J Int Adv Otol 10(1):64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ferekidis EA et al (2003) Chondrotympanoplasty: a modified technique of cartilage graft tympanoplasty. Med Sci Monit 9(2):CR73–CR78PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mohamad SH, Khan I, Hussain SSH (2012) Is cartilage tympanoplasty more effective than fascia tympanoplasty? A systematic review. Otol Neurotol 33(5):699–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Khan MM, Parab SR (2011) Primary cartilage tympanoplasty: our technique and results. Am J Otolaryngol 32(5):381–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gün T et al (2017) A comparison of cartilage palisades and temporal fascia in type 1 tympanoplasty for bilateral tympanic membrane perforations in children. J Int Adv Otol 13(1):36–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kalcioglu MT, Firat Y, Selimoglu E (2009) Cartilage tympanoplasty with island technique: a comparison with the temporalis muscle fascia technique. J Int Adv Otol 5(1):45–50Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Al Qahtani B et al (2015) Tympanometric patterns in patients undergoing cartilage tympanoplasty of 0.6 mm thickness. Indian J Otol 21(4):233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pradeep P et al (2017) Indian J Otolaryngol 29(2):63–68Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Priya K et al (2012) Evaluation of eustachian tube function in chronic suppurative otitis media (tubotympanic type) with reference to its treatment outcome. Indian J Otol 18(4):179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Anirban B (2002) Clinical audio-vestibulometry for otologists and neurologists, 3rd edn. Bhalani Publishing House, Mumbai, pp 56–60Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Salén B (1967) Tympanic membrane grafts of full-thickness skin, fascia and cartilage with its perichondrium. An experimental and clinical investigation. Acta oto-laryngol 85(Suppl-244):1173–1176Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jansen C (1963) Cartilage island tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope 73:1288–1301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Heermann Joachim, Heermann Hans, Kopstein Ernest (1970) Fascia and cartilage palisade mtympanoplasty: nine years’ experience. Arch Otolaryngol 91(3):228–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goodhill V (1967) Tragal perichondrium and cartilage in tympanoplasty. Arch Otolaryngol. 85(5):480–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tos M (2008) Cartilage tympanoplasty methods: proposal of a classification. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 139(6):747–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lee C-F et al (2007) Optimal graft thickness for different sizes of tympanic membrane perforation in cartilage myringoplasty: a finite element analysis. Laryngoscope 117(4):725–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mathur NN, Manimaran V, Deka A (2017) Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg (abstract)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Demirpehlivan IA, Onal K, Arslanoglu S et al (2011) Comparison of different tympanic membrane reconstruction techniques in type I tympanoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 268(3):471–474 (abstract) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Karaman E, Duman C, Isildak H (2010) Composite cartilage island grafts in type 1 tympanoplasty: audiological and otological outcomes. J Craniofac Surg 21(1):37–39 (abstract) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Onal K et al (2011) Perichondrium/cartilage island flap and temporalis muscle fascia in type I tympanoplasty. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 40(4):295–299 (abstract) PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Otolaryngologists of India 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck surgeryJubilee Mission Medical College and Research InstituteThrissurIndia

Personalised recommendations