DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/issn.2454-5929.ijohns20175616

A study of surgical outcomes of myringoplasty in active and inactive ears

Vasim Ismail Patel, N. H. Kulkarni, Jyothi A. C., ShriKrishna B. H.

Abstract


Background: Chronic otitis media (COM) can present with inactive (dry) and active (wet) ear. It’s an accepted fact that an actively draining central perforation is not a contraindication for ear surgery. The discharging ear presents the otologists with the dilemma of operating on it or not, this is due to widespread belief that the success rate while doing ear surgeries on active ears is decidedly inferior. Hence the present study is intended to find the outcome of ear surgeries in inactive and active ear with objective to find the incidence of graft uptake and hearing improvement in both the groups.

Methods: A total of 50 active ear (with mucoid discharge) and 52 inactive ears (not discharging at least 3 month before surgery) with mucosal chronic otitis media underwent myringoplasty with cortical mastoidectomy. Graft take and hearing gain rates 3 and 6 months after surgery were calculated for both groups and compared.  

Results: The graft take rate was 90% for the active ear group and 94% for the inactive ear group. The hearing gain rate was 90% for the active ear group and 94% for the inactive ear group. Differences were found to be statistically insignificant for both graft intake (p=0.461) and hearing gain (p=0.543).

Conclusions: The success of myringoplasty is not adversely affected by the presence of mucoid ear discharge at time of surgery, and outcomes are comparable to those of the opration done for inactive ears. 


Keywords


Myringoplasty, Chronic otitis media, Active ear, Inactive ear

Full Text:

PDF

References


Rourke T, Snelling JD, Aldren C. Cartilage graft butterfly myringoplasty: how we do it. Clin Otolaryngol. 2010;35:135-8

Silviu A, Gregorio B, Franco T. Prognostic factors in tympanoplasty. Am J Otol. 1998;19:136-40.

Sergi B, Galli J, De Corso E, Parrilla C, Paludetti G. Overlay versus underlay myringoplasty: report of outcomes considering closure of perforation and hearing function. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2011;31:366-71.

Pignataro L, Grillo Della Berta L, Capaccio P, Zaghis A. Myringoplaty in children:anatomical and functional results. J Laryngol Otol. 2001;115:369-73.

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

Denoyelle F, Roger G, Chauvin P, Garabedian EN. Myringoplasty in children:predictive factors of outcome. Laryngoscope. 1999;109:47-51.

Westerberg J, Harder H, Magnuson B, Westerberg L, Hyden H. Ten-year myringoplasty series: does the cause of the perforation affect the suc-cess rate. J Laryngol Otol. 2011;125:126-32.

Jackson CG, Kaylie DM, Glasscock ME, Strasnick B. Tympanoplasty-Undersurface graft technique. In: Brackmann DE, Shelton C, Arriaga MA: Otologic Surgery, 3rd ed. Saunders, Elsevier; 2010: 149-160.

Ortegren U. Myringoplasty. Acta Otorhinolaryngology. 1964;193:1-41.

Jackler RK, Schindler RA. Role of the mastoid in tympanic membrane reinstruction, Laryngoscope. 1984;94:495-500.

Adkins WY, White B, Charleston SC. Type I tympanoplasty: influencing factors. Laryngoscope. 1984;94:916-8.

Paparella MM, Froymowich O. Surgical advances in treating otitis media. An Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1994;103:49-53.

Raj A, Vidit. Review of patients undergoing wet myringoplasty. Indian J Otol. 1999;5(3):134-6.

Vartiainen E. The results of chronic ear surgery in a training programme. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 1998;23:177-80.

Vartiainen E, Karja J, Karjalainen S, Harma R. Failures in myringoplasty. Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 1985;242:27-33.

Krishnan A, Reddy EK, Chandrakiran C, Nalinesha KM, Jagannath PM. Tympanoplasty with and without cortical mastoidectomy-a comparative study. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002;54(3):195-8.

Fukuchi I, Cerchiari DP, Garcia E, Rezende CE, Rapoport P. Tympanoplasty: surgical results and a comparison of the factors that may interfere in their success, Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2006;72(2):267-71.