Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:51:50.564Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Functional results of temporalis fascia versus cartilage tympanoplasty in patients with bilateral chronic otitis media

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 October 2011

K Onal ,
S Arslanoglu ,
M Songu ,
U Demiray  and
I A Demirpehlivan
K Onal
Affiliation:
Clinic I, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Izmir Ataturk Research and Training Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
S Arslanoglu
Affiliation:
Clinic I, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Izmir Ataturk Research and Training Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
M Songu*
Affiliation:
Clinic I, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Izmir Ataturk Research and Training Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
U Demiray
Affiliation:
Clinic I, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Izmir Ataturk Research and Training Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
I A Demirpehlivan
Affiliation:
Clinic I, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Izmir Ataturk Research and Training Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Murat Songu, Clinic I, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Izmir Ataturk Research and Training Hospital, Izmir, Turkey Fax: 00902322431530 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

To compare the functional results of type I tympanoplasty performed with either temporalis fascia or a perichondrium and cartilage island flap, in patients with bilateral chronic otitis media.

Method:

The study included primary tympanoplasty cases with a subtotal perforation, an intact ossicular chain, a dry ear for at least one month and normal middle-ear mucosa, together with contralateral tympanic membrane perforation. Temporalis fascia tympanoplasty was undertaken in 41 patients, and cartilage tympanoplasty in 39 patients.

Results:

The graft success rate was 65.9 per cent for the fascia group and 92.3 per cent for the cartilage group. Post-operatively, the mean ± standard deviation air conduction threshold was 28.54 ± 14.20 dB for the fascia group and 22.97 ± 8.37 dB for the cartilage group, while the mean ± standard deviation bone conduction threshold was 11.71 ± 8.50 dB for the fascia group and 7.15 ± 5.56 dB for the cartilage group.

Conclusion:

In patients with bilateral chronic otitis media, cartilage tympanoplasty seems to provide better hearing results and graft success rates.

Keywords

TympanoplastyGraftsCartilageFasciaChronic Otitis Media
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 126 , Issue 1 , January 2012 , pp. 22 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Kazikdas, KC, Onal, K, Boyraz, I, Karabulut, E. Palisade cartilage tympanoplasty for management of subtotal perforations: a comparison with the temporalis fascia technique. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2007;264:985–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Indorewala, S. Dimensional stability of free fascia grafts: clinical application. Laryngoscope 2005;115:278–82CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Dornhoffer, JL. Surgical management of the atelectatic ear. Am J Otol 2000;21:315–21Google Scholar
4Songu, M, Aslan, A, Unlu, HH, Celik, O. Neural control of eustachian tube function. Laryngoscope 2009;119:1198–202Google Scholar
5Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium guidelines for the evaluation of results of treatment of conductive hearing loss. American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation, Inc. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995;113:186–7Google Scholar
6Onal, K, Uguz, MZ, Kazikdas, KC, Gursoy, ST, Gokce, H. A multivariate analysis of otological, surgical and patient related factors in determining success in myringoplasty. Clin Otolaryngol 2005;30:115–20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Pinar, E, Sadullahoglu, K, Calli, C, Oncel, S. Evaluation of prognostic factors and middle ear risk index in tympanoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;139:386–90Google Scholar
8Gerber, MJ, Mason, JC, Lambert, PR. Hearing results after primary cartilage tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope 2000;110:1994–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Roger, G, Bokowy, C, Coste, A, Moine, A, Monier, S, Florant, A et al. Tympanoplasty using chondro-perichondral graft. Indications, techniques and results. Apropos of a series of 127 cases [in French]. Ann Otolaryngol Chir Cervicofac 1994;111:29–34Google ScholarPubMed
10Harner, SG. Management of posterior tympanic membrane retraction. Laryngoscope 1995;105:326–8Google Scholar
11Chandrasekhar, SS, House, JW, Devgan, U. Pediatric tympanoplasty: a 10-year experience. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995;121:873–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Koch, WM, Friedman, EM, McGill, TJ, Healy, GB. Tympanoplasty in children: the Boston Children's Hospital experience. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1990;116:35–40CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Gianoli, GJ, Worley, NK, Guarisco, JL. Pediatric tympanoplasty: the role of adenoidectomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995;113:380–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Adkins, WY, White, B. Type I tympanoplasty: influencing factors. Laryngoscope 1984;94:916–18CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Kessler, A, Potsic, WP, Marsh, RR. Type 1 tympanoplasty in children. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1994;120:487–90Google Scholar
16Caylan, R, Titiz, A, Falcioni, M, De Donato, G, Russo, A, Taibah, A et al. Myringoplasty in children: factors influencing surgical outcome. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;118:709–13Google ScholarPubMed
17Collins, WO, Telischi, FF, Balkany, TJ, Buchman, CA. Pediatric tympanoplasty: effect of contralateral ear status on outcomes. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;129:646–51CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Merenda, D, Koike, K, Shafiei, M, Ramadan, H. Tympanometric volume: a predictor of success of tympanoplasty in children. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;136:189–92CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed