Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T09:50:05.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Revision myringoplasty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2007

Gilead Berger ,
Dov Ophir ,
Eliezer Berco  and
Jacob Sadé
Gilead Berger*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Meir General Hospital, Kfar Saba, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel.
Dov Ophir
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Meir General Hospital, Kfar Saba, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel.
Eliezer Berco
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Meir General Hospital, Kfar Saba, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel.
Jacob Sadé
Affiliation:
Sarita and Felix Dumont Chair of Hearing Research, Bio-Engineering Program, Tel-Aviv University, Israel.
*
Address for correspondence: Gilead Berger, M.D., Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery. Meir General Hospital, 44281 Kfar Saba, Israel. Fax: 972-9-7410596.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This retrospective study was undertaken to review the short- and long-term results of 70 revision and 16 re-revision myringoplasty operations. Of the former, 43 cases (61.4 per cent) had initial success, six weeks following surgery. The leading causes of immediate failure (27 cases) were associated with a complete no- take of thegraft, infection with graft necrosis and poor anterior adaptation of the graft in decreasing order. Six out of the 43 patients developed late re-perforations during the follow-up period, thus reducing the success rate of revision myringoplasty to 52.8 per cent. Late re-perforations were attributed to insidious atrophy of the tympanic membrane or episodes of acute otitis media. Sixteen patients underwent re-revision myringoplasty and their success rate was 62.5 per cent. The overall success rate of revision and re-revision myringoplasty was 54.7 per cent. It has been concluded that results of revision myringoplastywere independent of patients' age, location and size of perforation and the seniority of the surgeon.

Keywords

Otitis mediasuppurativeRevisionsurgicalPrognosis
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 111 , Issue 6 , June 1997 , pp. 517 - 520
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 1997

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

Gibb, A. G., Chang, S.-K. (1982) Myringoplasty (a review of 365 operations). Journal of Laryngology and Otology 96: 915–930.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glasscock, M. E. III, Jackson, C. G., Nissen, A. J., Schwaber, M. K. (1982) Postauricular undersurface tympanic membrane grafting. Laryngoscope 92: 718–723.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halik, J. J., Smyth, G. D. L. (1988) Long-term results of tympanic membrane repair. Otolaryngology– Head and Neck Surgery 98: 162–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jurovitzki, I., Sadé, J. (1988) Myringoplasty: long-term follow-up. American Journal of Otology 9: 52–55.Google Scholar
Packer, P., Mackendrick, A., Solar, M. (1982) What's best in myringoplasty: underlay or overlay. dura or fascia? Journal of Laryngology and Otology 96: 24–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sadé, J., Berco, E., Brown, M., Weinberg, J., Avraham, S. (1981) Myringoplasty short and long-term results in training program. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 95: 653–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheehy, J. L., Anderson, R. G. (1980) Myringoplasty: a review of 472 cases. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology 88: 331–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vartiainen, E., Karja, J., Karjalainen, S., Harma, R. (1985) Failures in myringoplasty. Archives of Otorhinolaryngology 242: 27–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vartiainen, E. (1993) Findings in revision myringoplasty. Ear, Nose and Throat Journal 72: 201–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed