Published: 2019-10-23

Comparative study of cartilage tympanoplasty with temporalis fascia tympanoplasty

Raghav Mehta, Pradeep Patidar, Mohit Punjabi, Mukesh Dagur, Sudhanshu Pandey


Background: The aim of our study is comparison of effectiveness of cartilage (conchal or tragal) tympanoplasty with temporalis fascia tympanoplasty in terms of graft uptake and audiological outcomes. Help of following databases were taken: MEDLINE, emedicine, Google scholar, and the PubMed.

Methods: We studied the outcome of two different type of graft material (cartilage and temporalis fascia). Who underwent type 1 tympanoplasty at department of otorhinolaryngology, RUHS College of Medical Sciences, Jaipur from November 2015 to November 2018. Total 80 patients were divided in two groups, 40 patients underwent cartilage grafting while 40 patient’s tympanoplasty was done using temporalis fascia graft.  

Results: The successful graft uptake rate for the fascia group was 90%, and that for the cartilage group was 97.5%. Though initial audiological improvements were better in fascia graft group, long term results were similar in both groups.

Conclusions: The use of cartilage tympanoplasty has similar outcomes to temporalis fascia grafting for audiological purpose. But successful uptake rate is better for cartilage as it is elastic, more resistant to resorption and retraction from more negative middle ear pressure.


Cartilage, Temporalis fascia, Tympanoplasty

Full Text:



Tos M. Cartilage tympanoplasty. Classification of methods, techniques, results. Stuttgart, Germany: Thieme Publishing Group; 2009.

Yung M, Vivekanandan S, Smith P. Randomized study comparing fascia and cartilage grafts in myringoplasty. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2011;120:535Y41.

Mauri M, Neto JFL, Fuchs SC. Evaluation of inlay butterfly cartilage tympanoplasty: a randomised clinical trial. Laryngoscope. 2001;111:1479Y85.

Yang T, Wu X, Peng X, Zhang Y, Xie S, Sun H. Comparison of cartilage graft and fascia in type 1 tympanoplasty: systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Otolaryngol. 2016;136:1085-90.

Jiang Z, Lou Z. Effects of perforation size on the success rate of tympanoplasty using a cartilage graft. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;S1808-8694(16):30228-2.

Heermann JJ, Heermann H, Kopstein E. Fascia and cartilage palisade tympanoplasty: Nine years’ experience. Arch Otolaryngol. 1970;91:228-41.

Milewski C. Composite graft tympanoplasty in the treatment of ears with advanced middle ear pathology. Laryngoscope 1993;103:1352–6.

Amedee RG, Mann WJ, Riechelmann H. Cartilage palisade tympanoplasty. Am J Otol. 1989;10:447–50

Zahnert T, Huttenbrink KB, Murbe D, Bornitz M. Experimental investigations of the use of cartilage in tympanic membrane reconstruction. Am J Otol. 2000;21:322-8.

Kazikdas KC1, Onal K, Boyraz I, Karabulut E. Palisade cartilage tympanoplasty for management of subtotal perforations: a comparison with the temporalis fascia technique. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2007;264:985Y9.

Aarnisalo AA, Cheng JT, Ravicz ME, Furlong C, Merchant SN, Rosowski JJ. Motion of the tympanic membrane after cartilage tympanoplasty determined by stroboscopic holography. Hear Res. 2010;263:78-84.

Songu M, Aslan A, Unlu HH, Celik O. Neural control of eustachian tube function. Laryngoscope. 2009;119:1198–202.

Albirmawy OA. Comparison between cartilage-perichondrium composite ‘ring’ graft and temporalis fascia in type one tympanoplasty in children. J Laryngol . 2010;124:967Y74.

Ozbek C, Ciftci O, Tuna EE, Yazkan O, Ozdem C. A comparison of cartilage palisades and fascia in Type 1 tympanoplasty in children: anatomic and functional results. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:679Y83.