A comparative evaluation of graft uptake and audiological results of temporalis fascia graft vs reinforced sliced tragal cartilage in type 1 tympanoplasty
Keywords:Tympanoplasty, Temporalis fascia, Reinforced sliced cartilage
Background: Numerous grafting materials have been applied for repair of tympanic membrane (TM) in chronic otitis media patients. This study aimed to compare the anatomical and audiological results of temporalis fascia alone versus reinforced sliced cartilage in type 1 tympanoplasty.
Methods: A prospective study was conducted on 50 patients of age group 15-55 years. Patients were randomly divided into two groups, each group having 25 patients. In group I patients under went type I tympanoplasty with temporalis muscle fascia alone and group II patients with sliced tragal cartilage reinforced to temporalis fascia. Post operatively all patients were followed on 30th, 60th and 90th day. In the last follow up, assessment of graft uptake was done and pure-tone audiometry was performed to evaluate air-bone gap closure. The data so obtained were collected and analysed using appropriate statistical tests.
Results: Overall graft uptake rate in group I (TF alone) was 84%, whereas in group II (TF+ reinforced sliced cartilage) was 92% (p=0.5). The mean post op ABG improved to 16.17±6.26 dB and 16.56±5.25 dB respectively in group I and II. There was significant hearing improvement in each group but no statistical significant difference was observed in post-op ABG between the two groups.
Conclusions: Reinforced sliced tragal cartilage technique is a good alternative to temporalis fascia alone in terms of graft uptake and prevention of disease recurrence, especially for large and subtotal perforations but additive effect of cartilage slicing in hearing gain still remains little controversial.
Ott MC, Lundy LB. Tympanic membrane perforation in adults: How to manage, when to refer. Postgrad Med. 2001;110(5):81-4.
Guenzani S, Mereu D, Messersmith M, Olivari D, Arena M, Spanò A. Inner-ear decompression sickness in nine trimix recreational divers. Diving Hyperb Med. 2016;46(2):111-6.
Santhi T, Rajan KV. A Study of Closure of Tympanic Membrane Perforations by Chemical Cauterisation. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;64(4):389-92.
Mittal R, Lisi CV, Gerring R, Mittal J, Mathee K, Narasimhan G et al. Current concepts in the pathogenesis and treatment of chronic suppurative otitis media. J Med Microbiol. 2015;64(10):1103-16.
Shea JJ. Vein graft closure of eardrum perforations. J Laryngol Otol. 1960;74:358-62.
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;265:739-42.
Khan MM, Parab SR. Primary cartilage tympanoplasty: our technique and results. Am J Otolaryngol. 2011;32:381-7.
Anderson J, Cayé-Thomasen P, Tos M. A comparison of cartilage palisades and fascia in tympanoplasty after surgery for sinus or tensa retraction cholesteatoma in children. Otol Neurotol. 2004;25(6):856-63.
Gierek T, Slaska-Kaspera A, Majzel K, Klimczak-Gołab L. Results of myringoplasty and type I tympanoplasty with the use of fascia, cartilage and perichondrium grafts. Otolaryngol Pol. 2004;58(3):529-33.
Yung M. Cartilage tympanoplasty: Literature review. J Laryngol Otol. 2008;122(7), 663-72.
Dornhoffer JL. Cartilage tympanoplasty. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2006;39:1161-76.
Elfouly MS. Full thickness vs sliced mosaic cartilage graft in tympanoplasty: a comparative study. Egypt J Otolaryngol. 2021;37:62.
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.
Toynbee J. On the use of an artificial membrane Qmpaniin cases of deafness dependent upon perforations or destruction of the natural organ. J Churchill & Sons, London. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1964;81:204.
Klaus J. Middle ear surgery: Recent advances and future directions. Georg Thieme Verlag; Chapter 2- Biomechanical Aspects of middle ear reconstruction- K.B. Hottenbrink. 2004;30-2.
Ergun O, Bajin M, Sargon M, Sennaroglu L. Hacettepe cartilage slicer: a novel cartilage slicer and its performance test results. J Laryngol Otol. 2017;131(8):671-5.
Newman CW, Weinstein BE, Jacobson GP, Hug GA. The Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults: psychometric adequacy and audiometric correlates. Ear Hear. 1990;11(6):430-3.
Elsheikh MN, Elsherief HS, Elsherief SG. Cartilage tympanoplasty for management of tympanic membrane atelectasis: is ventilatory tube necessary? Otol Neurotol. 2006;27:859-64.
Hippocrates De Carnibus. TranslatedbyTeubren BB. Leipzig, Berlin. 1935.
Telang RA, Joshi SV, Jithesh AS. A comparative study of tympanoplasty using sliced cartilage graft vs. temporalis fascia graft. J Evid Based Med Healthc. 2018;5(7):566-9.
Celil U, Arman T, Arzu T, Yasin K, Ruhi D, Evren A et al. Cartilage reinforcement tympanoplasty: otological and audiological results, Acta Oto-Laryngologica. 2010;130:3:375-83.
Singh SP, Nagi RS, Singh J. To study the effect of site and size of tympanic membrane perforation on graft uptake rates and hearing improvement in type I tympanoplasty using sliced conchal cartilage reinforced with temporalis muscle fascia and temporalis muscle fascia alone. Ind J Otol. 2019;25(3):121-53.
Kim JY, Oh JH, Lee HH. Fascia versus cartilage graft in type I tympanoplasty: audiological outcome. J Craniofac Surg. 2012;23(6):605-8.
Vadiya S, Parikh V, Shah S, Pandya P, Kansara A. Comparison of modified cartilage shield tympanoplasty with tympanoplasty using temporalis fascia only: retrospective analysis of 142 cases. Scientifica. 2016;8092328.
Chhapola S, Matta I. Cartilage–Perichondrium: An Ideal Graft Material? Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;64(3):208-13.
Ozbek C, Ciftci O, Tuna EEU, 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(5):679-83.