The Effect of Perforation Size and Site on Graft Success and Hearing in Cartilage Tympanoplasty with Mastoidectomy
Abstract
Methods: The patients were classified in groups with respect to the perforation site (central or marginal) and size (large if the perforation comprised more than 50% of the membrane area, and small if it comprised less) in the tympanic membrane. Anatomical success and preoperative–postoperative mean air bone gap pure tone average (ABG PTA) values of the graft were separately calculated for each group, and the ratios were compared.
Results: In 69 patients who underwent Type 1 tympanoplasty with mastoidectomy, 48 tympanic membrane perforations were central, 21 were marginal, 46 were small, and 23 were large. Graft anatomic success rates were 91.7% in the central group, 66.7% in the marginal group, 89.1% in the small group, and 73.9% in the large group. The anatomical success of the central group was found to be significantly higher than that of the marginal group. No difference was found between the small and large groups. When the effect on hearing was calculated, the postoperative hearing levels were significantly better in the central group.
Conclusion: Perforation size had no effect on the anatomical success and hearing level of the graft, while the perforation site affected both the anatomical success of the graft and the hearing level.
Keywords
tympanoplasty , cartilage , hearing , tympanic membrane perforation , mastoidectomy
References
- Alsarhan HE, Dawood MR, Jwery AAK, Khammas AH, Hamad AK. Assessment of hearing loss in tympanic membrane perforation. Adv Arab Acad Audio-Vestibul Journal 2016; 3: 16-9.
- Dawood MR. Hearing evaluation after successful myringoplasty. Journal of Otology 2017; 12 (4): 192-7.
- Gamra OB, Mbarek C, Khammassi K, Methlouthi N, Ouni H, Hariga I, et al. Cartilage graft in type I tympanoplasty: audiological and otological outcome. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2008; 265(7): 739-42.
- Jalali MM, Motasaddi M, Kouhi A, Dabiri S, Soleimani R. Comparison of cartilage with temporalis fascia tympanoplasty: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Laryngoscope 2017; 127(9): 2139-48.
- Kamath MP, Sreedharan S, Rao AR, Raj V, Raju K. Success of myringoplasty: our experience. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013; 65(4): 358-62.
- Karela 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(9): 1039-42.
- Kumar TVVV. Evaluation of various graft materials in myringoplasty. Int J Pharm Bio Sci 2015; 6(1): 700-23.
- Levinson RM. Cartilage-perichondrial composite graft tympanoplasty in the treatment of posterior marginal and attic retraction pockets. Laryngoscope 1987; 97(9): 1069-74.
- McGrew BM, Jackson CG, Glasscock ME. Impact of mastoidectomy on simple tympanic membrane perforation repair. Laryngoscope 2004; 114(3): 506-11.
- Milewski C. Composite graft tympanoplasty in the treatment of ears with advanced middle ear pathology. Laryngoscope 1993; 103(12): 1352-6.