Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:16:40.084Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ten-year myringoplasty series: does the cause of perforation affect the success rate?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2010

J Westerberg ,
H Harder ,
B Magnuson ,
L Westerberg  and
D Hydén
J Westerberg*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Vrinnevi Hospital, Norrköping, Sweden
H Harder
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Linköping University Hospital, Sweden
B Magnuson
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Linköping University Hospital, Sweden
L Westerberg
Affiliation:
Systems Biology Research Centre, School of Life Science, Skövde University, Sweden
D Hydén
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Linköping University Hospital, Sweden
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Johanna Westerberg, Department of ENT, Vrinnevi Hospital, Gamla Övägen 25, 601 82 Norrköping, Sweden Fax: +46 11 223129 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To present the results of primary myringoplasty procedures together with the perforation cause, perforation size and site, surgeon's experience, and surgical method, and to investigate how these factors relate to graft ‘take’ rates.

Study design:

Retrospective chart review of 243 consecutive patients undergoing primary myringoplasty with temporalis fascia underlay over a 10-year period from 1994 to 2004.

Results:

The overall graft take rate was 95 per cent. The retroauricular approach resulted in a 97 per cent graft take rate, whereas a significantly lower rate (77 per cent) was seen for surgery conducted via the endaural approach, or via an ear speculum. There was no relationship between other factors and tympanic membrane healing.

Conclusion:

No association was found between perforation cause and graft take rate. The underlay technique is safe and reliable, and the retroauricular approach is preferable as it enables good surgical access and has better results.

Keywords

Tympanic Membrane PerforationMyringoplastyOtologic Surgical ProceduresOutcomes Assessment
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 125 , Issue 2 , February 2011 , pp. 126 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2010

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

1Glasscock, ME. Tympanic membrane grafting with fascia: overlay vs. undersurface technique. Laryngoscope 1973;83:754–70CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Palva, T, Virtanen, H. Pitfalls in myringoplasty. Acta Otolaryngol 1982;93:441–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Aggarwal, R, Saeed, SR, Green, KJM. Myringoplasty. J Laryngol Otol 2006;120:429–32CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Karela, M, Sandeep, B, Watkins, A, Phillipps, JJ. Myringoplasty: surgical outcomes and hearing improvement: is it worth performing to improve hearing? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2008;265:1039–42CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Albera, R, Ferrero, V, Lacilla, M, Canale, A. Tympanic reperforation in myringoplasty: evaluation of prognostic factors. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2006;15:875–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Bhat, NA, De, R. Retrospective analysis of surgical outcome, symptom changes and hearing improvement following myringoplasty. J Otolaryngol 2000;29:229–32Google ScholarPubMed
7Kotecha, B, Fowler, S, Topham, J. Myringoplasty: a prospective audit study. Clin Otolaryngol 1999;24:126–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Vartiainen, E, Nuutinen, J. Success and pitfalls in myringoplasty: follow-up study of 404 cases. Am J Otol 1993;1:301–5Google Scholar
9Sckolnick, JS, Mantle, B, Li, J, Chi, DH. Pediatric myringoplasty: factors that affect success – a retrospective study. Laryngoscope 2008;118:723–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Packer, P, Mackendrick, A, Solar, M. What's best in myringoplasty: underlay or overlay, dura or fascia? J Laryngol Otol 1982;96:25–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11NCSS, PASS & GESS: Statistics, Graphics, Power Analysis, Sample Size & Microarray Analysis. In: http://www.ncss.com [5 May 2009]Google Scholar
12Lee, P, Kelly, G, Mills, RP. Myringoplasty: does the size of the perforation matter? Clin Otolaryngol 2002;27:331–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Gersdorff, M, Garin, P, Decat, M, Juantegui, M. Myringoplasty: long-term results in adults and children. Am J Otol 1995;16:532–5Google ScholarPubMed
14Singh, GB, Sidhu, TS, Sharma, A, Singh, N. Tympanoplasty type I in children – an evaluative study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2005;69:1071–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Hydén, D. Ear drum perforations in children after ventilation tube treatment. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 1994;29:93–100CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Blanshard, JD, Robson, AK, Smith, I, Maw, AR. A long term view of myringoplasty in children. J Laryngol Otol 1990;104:758–62CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed