DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/issn.2454-5929.ijohns20195691

Is cartilage shield tympanoplasty better than fascia tympanoplasty

Shahnaz Sheikh, Anushree Bajaj, Vikrant Vaze

Abstract


Background: Temporalis fascia and cartilage are the most commonly used graft materials, though contradictory reports are available in literature as regards their efficacy in tympanoplasty. The aim of the study was to compare the graft uptake rates and hearing results in case of temporalis fascia and cartilage in type 1 tympanoplasty.

Methods: A total of 400 cases with large, subtotal and total perforation were considered in the study. All the selected patients were divided into two groups. Group A in which temporalis fascia graft was used and including 200 cases and cartilage graft was used in Group B patients including 200 cases. Pure tone audiometry was performed preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 months.

Results: The graft uptake rate was more than 90 percent and more than 80 percent in Group B respectively at the end of 14 week. There was no statistical difference in hearing improvement in both the groups.

Conclusions: Tragal cartilage graft can be used in cartilage tympanoplasty especially in moderate, large and subtotal perforations. The graft has better uptake rate, less graft failure and hearing improvement results were comparable to temporalis fascia graft.


Keywords


Cartilage, Temporalis fascia, Tympanoplasty

Full Text:

PDF

References


Jung TT, Hanson JB. Classification of otitis media and surgical principles. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 1992;32:369-83.

Saha AK, Munshi DM, Ghosh SN. Evaluation of improvement of hearing in type 1 tympanoplasty and its influencing factors. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006;58:253-7.

Chandra KS. Combined effect of Eustachian tube function and middle ear mucosa on Tympanoplasty. Indian J Otol. 2006;12:26-7.

Singh M, Rai A, Bandyopadhyay S. Middle ear microsurgery in India; a retrospective audit study. Indian J Otolaryngol Heads Neck Surg. 2006;58:133-6.

Sade J, Berco E, Brown M, Weinberg J, Avraham S. Myringoplasty; short and long-term results in a training program. J Laryngol Otol. 1981;95:653-65.

Gibb AG, Chang SK. Myringoplasty (a review of 365 operations). J Laryngol Otol. 1982;96:915-30.

Dabholkar JP, Vora K, Skidar A. Comparative study of underlay tympanoplasty with temporalis fascia and tragal perichondrium. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;59:116-9.

Herman MK. Tang: The perforated ear drum: To repair or not. Hong Kong J Online. 1989;11:124-5.

Nissen AJ, Nissen RL, Yonkers AJ. A historical review of the use of bone and cartilage in otologic surgery. Ear Nose Throat J. 1986;65:493-6.

Duuckert LG, Muller J, Makielski KH, Helms J. Compositye autograft shield reconstruction of remnant tympanic membranes. Am J Otol. 1995;16:21-6.

Mohamad SH, Khan I, Hussain SSM. Is cartilage tympanoplasty more effective than fascia tympanoplasty. A systematic review. Otol Neurotol. 2012;33(5):699-705.

Khan MM, Parab SR. Primary cartilage tympanoplasty: our technique and results. Am J Otolaryngol Head Neck Med Surg. 2011;32(5):381-7.

Chhapola S, Matta I. Cartilage-perichondrium: an ideal graft material. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;64(3):208-13.

Vashishth A, Mathur NN, Choudhary SR, Bhardwaj A. Clinical advantages of cartilage palisades over temporalis facia in type 1 tympanoplasty. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2014;41950:422-7.

Guneri EA, Ikiz AO. Erdag TK, Sutay S. Cartilage tympanoplasty: indications, techniques, and results. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;38(3):362-8.

Demirpehlivan IA, Onal K, Arslanoglu S, Songu M, Ciger E, Can N. Comparison of different tympanic membrane reconstruction techniques in type 1. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2011;268(3):471-4.

Yetiser S, Hidir Y. Temporalis fascia and cartilage-perichondrium composite shield grafts for reconstruction of the tympanic membrane. Annals Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2009;118:570-4.

Ozbek C, Ciftci O, Tuna EE, Yazkan O, Ozdem CA. Comparison of cartilage palisades and fascia in type 1 tympanoplasty in children: anatomic and functional results. Otol Neurotol. 2008:29(5):679-83.