Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T03:04:14.314Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Results of revision myringoplasty: are they different to those of primary myringoplasty?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

P Prinsley
P Prinsley*
Affiliation:
ENT Department, James Paget University Hospital, Great Yarmouth, and ENT Department, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr P Prinsley, ENT Department, James Paget University Hospital, Great Yarmouth NR31 6LA, UK E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Audit question:

Does revision myringoplasty have worse outcomes than primary surgery?

Methods:

The International Otology Database has been used to record data on surgery for middle-ear disease in Norfolk, UK, over nine years. The data show the results of all myringoplasty cases and the results of revision cases. Outcome measures are perforation and hearing change. Comparison is made with benchmark centres of excellence.

Results:

A total of 611 operations included myringoplasty; 356 (58 per cent) of cases had a recorded follow up at 3 months. Twenty-nine patients (8.1 per cent) had a post-operative perforation. Benchmark centres performed 2319 operations; 1284 (55 per cent) of these had a follow up at 3 months, and 82 patients (6.4 per cent) had a perforation at follow up. Sixty-nine of the Norfolk patients were revision cases. Six of the 69 patients (8.7 per cent) had a perforation at follow up. The average hearing gain in the revision myringoplasty patients in Norfolk was 7 dB.

Conclusion:

The results of the revision myringoplasty cases are the same as those for the primary myringoplasty cases in this series.

Keywords

MyringoplastyReoperationTympanic Membrane PerforationInformed Consent
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 131 , Issue 4 , April 2017 , pp. 316 - 318
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2017 

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

1 Berger, G, Ophir, D, Berco, E, Sade, J. Revision myringoplasty. J Laryngol Otol 1997;111:517–20Google Scholar
2 Halik, JJ, Smyth, GD. Long-term results of tympanic membrane repair. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1988;98:162–9Google Scholar
3 Yung, M, Gjuric, M, Haeusler, R, Van de Heyning, PH, Martin, C, Swan, IR et al. An international otology database. Otol Neurotol 2005;26:1087–92Google Scholar
4 Bewick, J, Prinsley, P, Hearing loss following myringoplasty - implications for informed consent. J Laryngol Otol 2015;129:342–7Google Scholar
5 Prinsley, P. An audit of “dead ear” after ear surgery. J Laryngol Otol 2013;127:1177–83Google Scholar
6 Kotecha, B, Fowler, S, Topham, J. Myringoplasty: a prospective audit study. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1999;24:126–9Google Scholar
7 Mahendran, S, Bennett, AM, Jones, SE, Young, BA, Prinsley, PR. Audit of specialist registrar training in tympanomastoid surgery for chronic otitis media. J Laryngol Otol 2006;120:193–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed