Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:22:34.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Xenograft versus autograft in tympanoplasty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2007

Vincent P. Callanan ,
Aongus J. Curran  and
Peter K. Gormley
Vincent P. Callanan*
Affiliation:
University Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University College Hospital, Galway, Republic of Ireland.
Aongus J. Curran
Affiliation:
University Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University College Hospital, Galway, Republic of Ireland.
Peter K. Gormley
Affiliation:
University Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University College Hospital, Galway, Republic of Ireland.
*
Dr Vincent P. Callanan, M.B., Registrar, University Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University College Hospital, Galway, Republic of Ireland.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This retrospective study compares the tympanoplasty success rate when using a xenograft (Zenoderm) or an autograft (temporalis fascia).

Fifty-three ears were operated on over a three-year period. All the tympanoplasty operations were performed by the same surgeon. There were 43 ears in the temporalis fascia autograft group and 10 ears in the Zenoderm xenograft group. Both groups were similar with respect to patient age, type of tympanoplasty, area of tympanic membrane perforation and condition of the contralateral ear.

The tympanoplasty success rate in the temporalis fascia autograft group was 95 per cent. The tympanoplasty success rate in the Zenoderm xenograft group was only 40 per cent. All Zenoderm tympanoplasty failures were regrafted with temporalis fascia autograft. There was a 100 per cent success rate with this salvage surgery.

In conclusion, we suggest that Zenoderm is not a suitable graft material for tympanoplasty.

Keywords

Fascia, temporalisTympanoplastyXenograftAutograft
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 107 , Issue 10 , October 1993 , pp. 892 - 894
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 1993

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

Albrite, J. P., Leigh, B. G. (1966) Dural homograft (allostatic) myringoplasty. Laryngoscope 76: 1687–1693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berthold, E. (1878) Zeitschrift für Ohrenheilkunde 12: 143.Google Scholar
Boot, D. A.Hughes, S. P. F. (1984) The prevention of adhesions after laminectomy, adverse results of Zenoderm implantations into laminectomy sites in rabbits. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 215: 296–302.Google Scholar
Bourke, G. J., Daly, L. E., McGilvray, J. W. (1985) Hypothesis testing: comparison of two or more groups. In Interpretation and Uses of Medical Statistics. 3rd Edition. (Bourke, G. J., Daly, L. E., McGilvray, J. W., eds.), Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp. 102–105.Google Scholar
Ethicon Limited (1982) Package quantities. Zenoderm Data Sheet.Google Scholar
Goodhill, V., Harris, I.Brockman, S. J. (1964) Tympanoplasty with perichondral graft. Archives of Otolaryngology 79: 131–137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guilford, F. R. (1962) Tympanic grafts: personal experiences with surgical repair of tympanic perforations. Laryngoscope 72: 1028–1053.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heerman, H. (1960) Frommelfillplastik mit faszrengewebe von muskulus temporalis nach. Begradrgung der vorderen gehorgangsward. Hals, Nasen und Ohrenarzt 9: 136–137.Google Scholar
Holl-Allen, R. T. J., (1984a) Porcine dermal collagen implants in man. Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh 29: 151–153.Google ScholarPubMed
Holl-Allen, R. T. J. (1984b) Porcine dermal collagen repair of inguinal hernias. Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh 29: 154–157.Google Scholar
Ironside, W. M. S. (1982) Biological materials used in reconstruction of the ear: their preservation and banking. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 75: 691–698.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Minatogowa, T., Kumoi, T., Inamori, T., Oki, K., Machizuka, H. (1990) Hyogo ear bank experience with allograft tympanoplasty—review of tympanoplasties on 68 ears. American Journal of Otology 11: 157–163.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R., Lamb, J. (1983) Immediate closure of oro-antral communications with a collagen implant. British Dental Journal 154: 171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moussa, S. A., French, D. A. (1985) Microsurgical reconstruction of the trachea in rats. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 99: 61–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Neill, P., Booth, A. E. (1984) Use of porcine dermis as a dural substitute in 72 patients. Journal of Neurosurgery 61: 351–354.Google Scholar
Sanna, M., Gamoletti, R., Zini, C. (1985) Moulded tympanic heterografts, biological and clinical implications. In Immuno-biology, auto-immunity, transplantation in otorhinolaryngology (Veldman, J. E., McCabe, J. F.Huizing, E. H., Mygind, N., eds.), Kugler, Amsterdam, pp. 197–203.Google Scholar
Shea, J. J. (1960) Vein graft closure of eardrum perforations. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 74: 358–362.Google Scholar
Wright, W. K. (1963) Tissues for tympanic grafting. Archives of Otolaryngology 78: 291–296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wullstein, H. (1956) Theory and practice of tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope 66: 1076–1093.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zöllner, F. (1955) The principles of plastic surgery of the sound-conducting apparatus. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 69: 637–652.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed