Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T22:14:14.769Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Type I tympanoplasty with island chondro-perichondral tragal graft: the preferred technique?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2013

E De Seta ,
D De Seta ,
E Covelli ,
M Viccaro  and
R Filipo
E De Seta*
Affiliation:
Department of Sensory Organs, ‘Sapienza’ University of Rome, Italy
D De Seta
Affiliation:
Department of Sensory Organs, ‘Sapienza’ University of Rome, Italy
E Covelli
Affiliation:
Department of Sensory Organs, ‘Sapienza’ University of Rome, Italy
M Viccaro
Affiliation:
Department of Sensory Organs, ‘Sapienza’ University of Rome, Italy
R Filipo
Affiliation:
Department of Sensory Organs, ‘Sapienza’ University of Rome, Italy
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Elio De Seta, Via Carlo Conti Rossini 26, 00147 Rome, Italy Fax: +39 064454864 E-mail: edeseta@yahoo.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

This retrospective, comparative study aimed to assess anatomical and functional results in a group of adults undergoing type I tympanoplasty for subtotal tympanic membrane perforation, using two different types of graft.

Subjects and methods:

The study included 106 patients affected by chronic otitis media, who underwent underlay type I tympanoplasty, 53 using an autologous chondro-perichondral tragal graft and 53 using temporalis fascia. Anatomical and functional outcomes were evaluated over time.

Results:

Audiometric results comparing the cartilage and fascia groups at six months and one year after surgery showed no statistically significant differences. Assessment of anatomical outcomes indicated a greater number of complications in the fascia group.

Conclusion:

Functional results indicate the validity of the cartilage tympanoplasty, while anatomical results indicate a slightly better outcome in terms of graft re-perforation and retraction, compared with temporalis fascia at one-year follow up. These results suggest that the cartilage technique is preferable for type I tympanoplasty.

Keywords

FasciaGraftsTympanoplastyEar MiddleCartilage
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 127 , Issue 4 , April 2013 , pp. 354 - 358
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Presented at the 28th Politzer Society Meeting, 28 September to 1 October 2011, Athens, Greece

References

1Ozbek, C, Ciftçi, 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;29:679–83CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Kazikdas, KC, 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;264:985–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Buckingham, RA. Fascia and perichondrium atrophy in tympanoplasty and recurrent middle ear atelectasis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1992;101:755–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Cayé-Thomasen, P, Andersen, J, Uzun, C, Hansen, S, Tos, M. Ten-year results of cartilage palisades versus fascia in eardrum reconstruction after surgery for sinus or tensa retraction cholesteatoma in children. Laryngoscope 2009;119:944–52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Steinbach, E, Pusalkar, A. Long-term histological fate of cartilage in ossicular reconstruction. J Laryngol Otol 1981;95:1031–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Schuknecht, HF, Shi, SR. Surgical pathology of middle ear implants. Laryngoscope 1985;95:249–58CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Smyth, GD, Kerr, AG, Pahor, A, Law, K. Ossiculotympanic transplantation. Laryngoscope 1975;85:540–50CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Yung, M. Cartilage tympanoplasty: literature review. J Laryngol Otol 2008;122:663–72CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Dornhoffer, J. Cartilage tympanoplasty: indications, techniques, and outcomes in a 1,000-patient series. Laryngoscope 2003;113:1844–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Dornhoffer, JL. Cartilage tympanoplasty. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2006;39:1161–76CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Shin, SH, Lee, WS, Kim, HN, Lee, HK. Wheel-shaped cartilage-perichondrium composite graft for the prevention of retraction pocket development. Acta Otolaryngol 2007;127:25–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Ulkü, CH. Cartilage tympanoplasty with island technique for reconstruction of tympanic membrane perforation: anatomic and audiologic results. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg 2010;20:7–12Google ScholarPubMed
13Kirazli, T, Bilgen, C, Midilli, R, Ogüt, F. Hearing results after primary cartilage tympanoplasty with island technique. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005;132:933–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Beutner, D, Huttenbrink, KB, Stumpf, R, Beleites, T, Zahnert, T, Luers, JC et al. Cartilage plate tympanoplasty. Otol Neurotol 2010;31:105–10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Anderson, 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;25:856–63CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Bernal-Sprekelsen, M, Romaguera Lliso, MD, Sanz Gonzalo, JJ. Cartilage palisades in type III tympanoplasty: anatomic and functional long-term results. Otol Neurotol 2003;24:38–42CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17De Seta, E, Covelli, E, De Seta, D, Mancini, P, Filipo, R. Cartilage tympanoplasty: how to reduce surgery time. J Laryngol Otol 2010;124:784–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Sade, J. Secretory otitis media and its sequelae. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1979Google Scholar
19Tos, M. Cartilage tympanoplasty methods: proposal of a classification. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;139:747–58CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Goodhill, V. Tragal perichondrium and cartilage in tympanoplasty. Arch Otolaryngol 1967;85:480–91CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Duckert, LG, Müller, J, Makielski, KH, Helms, J. Composite autograft “shield” reconstruction of remnant tympanic membranes. Am J Otol 1995;16:21–6Google ScholarPubMed
22Dornhoffer, JL. Hearing results with cartilage tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope 1997;107:1094–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23Spielmann, P, Mills, R. Surgical management of retraction pockets of the pars tensa with cartilage and perichondrial grafts. J Laryngol Otol 2006;120:725–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Eavey, RD. Inlay tympanoplasty: cartilage butterfly technique. Laryngoscope 1998;108:657–61CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25Hartwein, J, Leuwer, RM, Kehrl, W. The total reconstruction of the tympanic membrane by the “crowncork” technique. Am J Otolaryngol 1992;13:172–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26Neumann, A, Jahnke, K. Reconstruction of the tympanic membrane applying cartilage: indications, techniques and results [in German]. HNO 2005;53:573–84CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Onal, K, Arslanoglu, S, Oncel, S, Songu, M, Kopar, A, Demiray, U. Perichondrium/cartilage island flap and temporalis muscle fascia in type I tympanoplasty. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2011;40:295–9Google ScholarPubMed
28Mürbe, D, Zahnert, T, Bornitz, M, Hüttenbrink, KB. Acoustic properties of different cartilage reconstruction techniques of the tympanic membrane. Laryngoscope 2002;112:1769–76CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29Lee, CF, Chen, JH, Chou, YF, Hsu, LP, Chen, PR, Liu, TC. Optimal graft thickness for different sizes of tympanic membrane perforation in cartilage myringoplasty: a finite element analysis. Laryngoscope 2007;117:725–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed