Type 1 tympanoplasty: does the status of contralateral ear affect the outcome?

Authors

  • Arindam Das Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head Neck Surgery, Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
  • Sandipta Mitra Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head Neck Surgery, Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
  • Debasish Ghosh Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head Neck Surgery, Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
  • Arunabha Sengupta Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head Neck Surgery, Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/issn.2454-5929.ijohns20191738

Keywords:

Tympanoplasty, Eustachian tube

Abstract

Background: The objective of the study was to investigate the effect of contralateral ear status on the success rate (anatomical closure) of type 1 tympanoplasty.

Methods: The study is a prospective observational study comprising of 60 patients diagnosed with chronic otitis media, who underwent type 1 tympanoplasty during 2016-2018 in a tertiary care hospital.  

Results: In our study, contralateral ear was normal in 40 (66.7%) cases & diseased in 20 (33.3%) cases. Success rate of type 1 tympanoplasty in patients with normal contralateral ear was 90% (n=36) but success rate was only 60% (n=12) in diseased contralateral ear. This was statistically significant (p=0.006).

Conclusions: Our study revealed that the status of the opposite ear is an individual prognostic factor for type 1 tympanoplasty. In other words, graft-healing rates are poorer in individuals whose opposite ears are atelectatic or perforated because of chronic otitis media.

Author Biography

Sandipta Mitra, Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head Neck Surgery, Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

Junior Resident, Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head Neck Surgery

References

Manolidis S. Closure of tympanic membrane perforations. In: Glasscock ME, editor. Glasscock-Shambaugh’s Surgery of the Ear. 5th ed. Hamilton: BC Decker; 2003: 400–419.

Berthold, E. Uber myringoplastik. Medicinisch-Chuutgisches Central-Blatt. 1879;14:195–207.

Wullstein, H. Theory and practice of tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope. 1956;66:1076–93.

Zollner, F. The principles of plastic surgery of the sound-conduction apparatus. J Laryngol Otol. 1955;69:637–52.

Sheehan P, Dounelly M, Kane R. Clinical features of newly presented case of COM. J Laryngol Otol. 2011;115:962-6.

Bluestone CD. Pathogenesis of otitis media: role of eustachian tube. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1996;15(4):281-91.

Tos M. Importance of eustachian tube function in middle ear surgery. Ear Nose Throat J. 1998;77(9):744-7.

Priya K, Karthikeyan P, Coumare VN, Sambandan AP. Evaluation of Eustachian tube function in chronic suppurative otitis media (tubotympanic type) with reference to its treatment outcome. Indian J Otol. 2012;18:179-83.

Sirena E, Carvalbo B, Buscble M, Moccllin M. Timanoplastia Myringoplasty Type 1 and in Residency Surgical Results and Audiometric. Arch Otorhinolaryngol-Brazil. 2010;14(4):417-21.

Wasson JD, Papadimitriou CE, Pau H. Myringoplasty: impact of perforation size on closure and audiological improvement. J Laryngol Otol. 2009;12:1-5.

Avilés Jurado FJ, Meran Gil JL, Tobed Secall M, Doménech Vadillo E, Masgoret Palau E, Martínez Novoa MD, et al. Miringoplastia: seguimiento auditivo y estudio de factores pronósticos. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2009;60:169-75.

Awan Z, Bashir H, Hussain A. Myringoplasty: A comparative study of different graft materials and various surgical techniques. Ann Pak Inst Med Sci. 2008;4(4):209-11.

Biswas SS, Hossain MA, Alam MM. Hearing evaluation after myringoplasty. Bangladesh J Otorhinolaryngol. 2010;16(1):23-8.

Shaikh AA, Shiraz MA, Shaikh OSM, Rafi T. Outcome of Tympanoplasty type 1 by Underlay Technique. JLUMHS. 2009;8(1)

Black JH, Wormald PJ. Myringoplasty: effects on hearing and contributing factors. South African Med J. 1995;85(1):41–3.

Kotecha B, Fowler S, Topham J. Myringoplasty:a prospective audit study. Clin Otolaryngol. 1999;24:126-9.

Vartianinen E, Nuutinen J. Success and pitfalls in myringoplasty:follow-up study of 404 cases. Am J Otol. 1993;14:301–5.

Sheehy J, Anderson R. Miryngoplasty. A review of 472 cases. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1980;89:331-4.

Onal K, Uguz MZ, Kazikdas KC, Gursoy ST, Gokce H. A multivariate analysis of otological, surgical and patient-related factors in determining success in myringoplasty. Clin Otolaryngol. 2005;30:115-20.

Khan FK, Ebenezer R, Manonmani SS. Assessment of factors affecting the outcome of Myringoplasty and type- tympanoplasty. Int J Biomed Res. 2014;5(5).

Dangol K, Shrivastav RP. Study of Various Prognostic Factors Affecting Successful Myringoplasty in a Tertiary Care Centre. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;21(3):250-4.

Albera R, Ferrero V, Lacilla M, Canale A. Tympanic reperforation in myringoplasty:evaluation of prognostic factors. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2006;115:875-9.

Chandrasekhar SS, House JW, Devgan U. Pediatric tympanoplasty. A 10-year experience. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1995;121:873-8.

Si Y, Chen Y, Xu G, Chen X, He W, Zhang Z. Cartilage tympanoplasty combined with eustachian tube balloon dilatation in the treatment of adhesive otitis media. Laryngoscope. 2018.

Downloads

Published

2019-04-26

Issue

Section

Original Research Articles