Advertisement

To Compare Short and Long-Term Graft Uptake and Hearing Outcome of Type I Cartilage Tympanoplasty Between Small, Medium and Large Perforations Using Reinforced Sliced Conchal Cartilage

  • Satinder Pal SinghEmail author
  • Ravinder Singh Nagi
  • Jagdeepak Singh
Original Article

Abstract

To compare short and long-term graft uptake and hearing outcome of type I cartilage tympanoplasty between small, medium and large perforations using reinforced sliced conchal cartilage. A retrospective study conducted in a tertiary center. Fifty patients who under went type I tympanoplasty were enrolled. Their mean age was 29.30 years and follow-up time was 6 and 18 months. The preoperative, postoperative short-term and long-term hearing and graft uptake results were analyzed. Graft uptake rate was 96% in short-term and 98% in long-term with one residual perforation in medium size, but 100% in small and large perforations (P < 0.01). Short and long-term ABG closure was identical in small and medium size perforation (P = 0.978) (P = 0.734), but, large perforation showed significant improvement in long-term (P = 0.012). Sliced conchal cartilage reinforced with temporalis fascia is a reliable technique for tympanoplasty. In long-term, large perforations have better graft uptake rate and continuous hearing improvement and ABG closure than small and medium perforations.

Keywords

Type I tympanoplasty Reinforced sliced conchal cartilage Graft uptake Air-bone gap 

Notes

Financial Disclosure

No.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that they have no conflict of interest

References

  1. 1.
    Shea JJ (1960) Vein graft closure of eardrum perforations. J Laryngol Otol 74:358–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tabb HG (1960) Closure of perforations of the tympanic membrane by vein grafts: a preliminary report of 20 cases. Laryngoscope 70:271–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Herman H (1960) Tympanic membrane plastic repair with temporalis fascia. Hals Nas Ohrenh 9:136–139Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Salen B (1968) Tympanic membrane grafts of full-thickness skin, fascia and cartilage with its perichondrium, an experimental and clinical investigation. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl Stockh 244:5–73Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Utech H (1959) On the diagnostic and therapeutic possibilities of tympanotomy in case of conductive disorders. Laryngol Rhinol 38:212–221Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dornhoffer J (2003) Cartilage tympanoplasty: indications, techniques, and outcomes in a 1000-patient series. Laryngoscope 113:1844–1856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dornhoffer JL (2006) Cartilage tympanoplasty. Otolaryngol Clin N Am 39:1161–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cabra J, Monux A (2010) Efficacy of cartilage palisade tympanoplasty: randomized controlled trial. Otol Neurotol 31:589–595Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Neumann A, Schultz-Coulon HJ, Jahnke K (2003) Type III tympanoplasty applying the palisade cartilage technique: a study of 61 cases. Otol Neurotol 24:33–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Velepic M, Bonifacic M, Manestar D (2001) Cartilage palisade tympanoplasty and diving. Otol Neurotol 22:430–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gerber MJ, Mason JC, Lambert PR (2000) Hearing results after primary cartilage tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope 110:1994–1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Neumann A, Jahnke K (2005) Reconstruction of the tympanic membrane applying cartilage: indications, techniques and results. HNO 53:573–584 (quiz 585–6) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tos M (2008) Cartilage tympanoplasty methods: proposal of a classification. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 139:747–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tos M (2009) Cartilage tympanoplasty. Thieme, Stuttgart (in print) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Man SC, Nunez DA (2016) Tympanoplasty–conchal cavum approach. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 45:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Anterior Sarac S, Tympanoplasty Cartilage-Reinforced (2005) In: Proposer M (ed) Current approach in ear and neck surgery. Hacettepe University Hospitals Printing House, Ankara, pp 44–45Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Overbosch HC (1971) Homograft myringoplasty with micro-sliced septal cartilage. Pract Otorhinolaryngol (Basel) 33:356–357Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zahnert T, Huttenbrink KB, Murbe D, Bornitz M (2000) Experimental investigations of the use of cartilage in tympanic membrane reconstruction. Am J Otol 21:322–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Khan MM, Parab SR (2015) Comparative study of sliced tragal cartilage and temporalis fascia in type I tympanoplasty. J Laryngol Otol 129:16–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kazikdas KC, Onal K, Boyraz I (2007) Palisade cartilage tympanoplasty for management of subtotal perforations: a comparison with the temporalis fascia technique. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 264:985–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vadiya S, Parikh V, Shah S, Pandya P, Kansara A (2016) Comparison of modified cartilage shield tympanoplasty with tympanoplasty using temporalis fascia only: retrospective analysis of 142 cases. Scientifica 2016:8092328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shekharappa MK, Siddappa SM (2017) Cartilage myringoplasty: an ideal grafting technique for complex perforations. J Clin Diagn Res 11(7):06–08.  https://doi.org/10.7860/jcdr/2017/26877.10264 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Iacovou E, Kyrodimos E, Sismanis A (2014) Cartilage, “shield” tympanoplasty: an effective and practical technique. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 271:1903–1908CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Otolaryngologists of India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Satinder Pal Singh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ravinder Singh Nagi
    • 2
  • Jagdeepak Singh
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of ENT and Head Neck SurgeryGovernment Medical College AmritsarAmritsarIndia
  2. 2.Department of ENT and Head Neck SurgeryGovernment Medical College AmritsarAmritsarIndia
  3. 3.Department of ENT and Head Neck SurgeryGovernment Medical College AmritsarAmritsarIndia

Personalised recommendations