Advertisement

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 275, Issue 11, pp 2653–2658 | Cite as

Anatomical and functional long-term results of endoscopic butterfly inlay myringoplasty

  • Burak KarabulutEmail author
  • Fatih Mutlu
  • Samil Sahin
  • Ahmet Adnan Cirik
Otology
  • 108 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term anatomical (graft success) and functional (audiological) results of endoscopic butterfly inlay myringoplasty.

Methods

The files of 56 patients (29 female, 27 male) who were diagnosed with noncomplicated chronic otitis media and underwent endoscopic butterfly inlay myringoplasty in 2014–2016 at a tertiary referral center were reviewed. Age, gender, follow-up time, perforation location (anterior, posterior and central), perforation size (small, medium), pre- and postoperative pure tone audiometry (PTA) thresholds, pre- and postoperative air-bone gaps (ABG) and complications were noted.

Results

Graft success rate was 98.2% in postoperative 12th month and 94.6% in postoperative 24th month. In all patients, mean PTA for air conduction was 35.2 ± 3.9 dB preoperatively and 27.5 ± 4.3 dB in postoperative 6th month, 25.1 ± 3.5 dB in postoperative 12th month and 20.4 ± 3.2 in postoperative 24th month. Preoperative mean ABG was 24.2 ± 3.8 dB, whereas 19.5 ± 4.3 dB 6 months after surgery, 17.1 ± 3.5 dB 12 months after surgery and 12.4 ± 3.1 dB 24 months after surgery. There was significant difference between pre- and postoperative PTA and ABG in all 6th, 12th, 24th month follow-up (p = 0.001 for all measurements). Three patients (5%) had myringitis after surgery. Two patients (3%) had total graft resorption.

Conclusion

We suggested that endoscopic butterfly inlay myringoplasty is a safe surgical method with high graft success and effective hearing reconstruction. Follow-up is necessary for at least 2 years for precise anatomical and functional evaluation of the surgery.

Keywords

Endoscopic myringoplasty Butterfly cartilage graft Myringoplasty 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Human and animal rights statement

Research involving human participants and/or animals.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. For this type of study formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Tos M (2008) Cartilage tympanoplasty methods: proposal of a classification. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 139(6):747–758.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2008.09.021 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eavey RD (1998) Inlay tympanoplasty: cartilage butterfly technique. Laryngoscope 108(5):657–661.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00005537-199805000-00006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shrestha BL (2013) How I do it? Endoscopic modified inlay butterfly cartilage perichondrium myringoplasty. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ) 11(42):185–187Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Akyigit A, Karlidag T, Keles E et al (2017) Endoscopic cartilage butterfly myringoplasty in children. Auris Nasus Larynx 44(2):152–155.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anl.2016.05.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Özgür A, Dursun E, Terzi S et al (2016) Endoscopic butterfly cartilage myringoplasty. Acta Otolaryngol 136(2):144–148.  https://doi.org/10.3109/00016489.2015.1101782 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hod R, Buda I, Hazan A et al (2013) Inlay “butterfly” cartilage tympanoplasty. Am J Otolaryngol 34(1):41–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2012.08.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ghanem MA, Monroy A, Alizade FS et al (2006) Butterfly cartilage graft inlay tympanoplasty for large perforations. Laryngoscope 116(10):1813–1816.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlg.0000231742.11048.ed CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alain H, Esmat NH, Ohad H et al (2016) Butterfly myringoplasty for total, subtotal, and annular perforations. Laryngoscope 126(11):2565–2568.  https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.25904 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaya I, Benzer M, Uslu M et al (2018) Butterfly cartilage tympanoplasty long-term results: excellent treatment method in small and medium sized perforations. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 11(1):23–29.  https://doi.org/10.21053/ceo.2017.00549 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim HJ, Kim MJ, Jeon JH et al (2014) Functional and practical outcomes of inlay butterfly cartilage tympanoplasty. Otol Neurotol 35(8):1458–1462.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000419 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mehta RP, Rosowski JJ, Voss SE et al (2006) Determinants of hearing loss in perforations of the tympanic membrane. Otol Neurotol 27(2):136–143.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mao.0000176177.17636.53 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Umraniye Training and Research Hospital Otolaryngology DepartmentUniversity of Health SciencesUmraniye/IstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations