Outcomes of Type I Tympanoplasty using a Cartilage Shield Graft

Abstract = 44 times | PDF = 13 times

Main Article Content

Murad Ghazi Ahmed Said M. Said Aljaff Hiwa Asaad Abdulkareem

Abstract

Background: Type I tympanoplasty surgery is an effective routine technic that had been used for tympanic reconstruction to improve hearing. Objectives: The aim was to measure the effect of type I tympanoplasty surgery using the cartilage shield graft (CSG) in term of graft uptake (anatomical outcome) and hearing gains (functional outcomes) of patients with poor prognostic factors. Method and Materials: In this study, 20 patients with perforation exceeded 50%, but limited to the tympanic membrane were recruited for type I tympanoplasty surgery. The study was conducted in the Otolaryngology/Head and Neck surgery training center in Sulaimani Teaching Hospital in Sulaimani city for one year period. Bellucci classification was used to evaluate otorrhea risks. Results: The majority of patients were female (90%), with a mean ± SD (standard deviation) of ages of 37.15 ± 14.01 years. Most of the patients (40%) were presented with a mild hearing loss of 26-40 decibels (dB). Type I tympanoplasty surgery using the cartilage shield graft (CSG) had significantly decreased the hearing loss and air-bone gap (p-value = 0.046 and 0.006, respectively). The mean differences in hearing loss and air-bone gap were 5.05 dB and 6.75 dB, respectively. Conclusions: CSG in type I tympanoplasty surgery is an effective solution in anatomical outcome (Graft uptake) and functional outcomes (hearing gains) which had been reflected in reducing hearing loss and air-bone gap (average hearing gain of 5dB) in patients presented with tympanic membrane perforations. No improvement in the functional outcomes was observed in patients presented with severe hearing loss pre-operatively.

Keywords

Air-bone gap, Bellucci classification, Cartilage shield graft (CSG), Hearing loss (dB), Tympanic membrane perforation, Type I tympanoplasty surgery.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

References

[1] J. Dornhoffer, “Cartilage tympanoplasty: indications, techniques, and outcomes in a 1,000-patient series,” Laryngoscope, 113 (11), pp. 1844-1856, 2003.
[2] R. Mane, B. Patil, A. Mohite, V. V. Varute, “Bilateral type 1 tympanoplasty in chronic otitis media,” Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 65 (4), pp. 293-297, 2013.
[3] D. Baklaci, I. Guler, I. Kuzucu, R. O. Kum, M. Ozcan, “Type 1 tympanoplasty in pediatric patients: a review of 102 cases,” BMC Pediatr, 18 (1), pp. 345, 2018.
[4] S. Vaidya, J. K. Sharma, G. Singh, “Study of outcome of tympanoplasties in relation to size and site of tympanic membrane perforation,” Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 66 (3), pp. 341-346, 2014.
[5] S. Gupta, P. Kalsotra, “Hearing gain in different types of tympanoplasties,” Indian J. Otol, 19 (4), pp. 186–193, 2013.
[6] H. Park, S. N. Hong, H. S. Kim, J. J. Han, J. Chung, M. W. Suh, et al., “Determinants of conductive hearing loss in tympanic membrane perforation,” Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol, 8 (2), pp. 92-96, 2015. Erratum in: Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol, 8 (4), pp. 430, 2015, Seo, Myung-Whan [corrected to Suh, Myung-Whan].
[7] M. Aslıer, H. Özay, S. Gürkan, G. Kırkım, E. A. Güneri, “The Effect of Tympanic Membrane Perforation Site, Size and Middle Ear Volume on Hearing Loss,” Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 57 (2), pp. 86-90, 2019.
[8] S. Shetty, “Pre-Operative and Post-Operative Assessment of Hearing following Tympanoplasty,” Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 64 (4), pp. 377-381, 2012.
[9] T. Sajid, M. I. Shah, R. Ghani, M. Asif, “Type-I Tympanoplasty By Underlay Technique - Factors Affecting Outcome,” J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad, 29 (2), pp. 258-261, 2017.
[10] N. V. Deosthale, S. P. Khadakkar, P. D. Kumar, V. V. Harkare, P. Dhoke, K. Dhote, et al., “Effectiveness of Type I Tympanoplasty in Wet and Dry Ear in Safe Chronic Suppurative Otitis Media,” Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 70 (3), pp. 325-330, 2018.
[11] T. Yang, X. Wu, X. Peng, Y. Zhang, S. Xie, H. Sun, “Comparison of cartilage graft and fascia in type 1 tympanoplasty: systematic review and meta-analysis,” Acta Otolaryngol, 136 (11), pp. 1085-1090, 2016.
[12] S. A. Lyons, T. Su, L. E. Vissers, J. P. Peters, A. L. Smit, W. Grolman, “Fascia compared to one-piece composite cartilage-perichondrium grafting for tympanoplasty,” Laryngoscope, 126 (7), pp. 1662-1670, 2016.
[13] H. E. Tan, P. L. Santa Maria, R. H. Eikelboom, K. S. Anandacoomaraswamy, M. D. Atlas, “Type I Tympanoplasty Meta-Analysis: A Single Variable Analysis,” Otol Neurotol, 37 (7), pp. 838-846, 2016.
[14] M. Salviz, O. Bayram, A. A. Bayram, H. H. Balikci, T. Chatzi, C. Paltura, et al., “Prognostic factors in type I tympanoplasty,” Auris Nasus Larynx, 42 (1), pp. 20-23, 2015.
[15] P. Caye-Thomasen, T. R. Nielsen, M. Tos, “Bilateral myringoplasty in chronic otitis media,” Laryngoscope, 117 (5), pp. 903-906, 2007.
[16] B. Bhardwaj, J. Singh, “Comparative Study of Hearing Improvement of Type 1 Tympanoplasty Using Temporalis Fascia and Conchal Cartilage as Graft Material,” Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 71 (Suppl 2), pp. 1174-1178, 2019.
[17] G. Batni, R. Goyal, “Hearing outcome after type I tympanoplasty: a retrospective study,” Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 67 (1), pp. 39-42, 2015.
[18] N. Aslam, J. Iqbal, K. Mehmood, “Type I tympanoplasty underlay technique and results,” Proc Shaikh Zayed Postgrad Med Inst, 15 (2), pp. 77–80, 2001.
[19] F. A. Fadl, “Outcome of type-1 tympanoplasty,” Saudi Med J, 24 (1), pp. 58–61, 2003.
[20] J. L. Dornhoffer, “Hearing results with cartilage tympanoplasty,” Laryngoscope, 107 (8), pp. 1094-1099, 1997.
[21] R. Hayati, T. Haryuna, D. Zahara, “Hearing threshold differences between pre and post tympanoplasty in patients with chronic suppurative otitis media,” Bali Medical Journal, 7 (1), pp. 47-50, 2018.