Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T04:53:18.981Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

En Hamac tympanoplasty and canalplasty for optimal type 1 tympanoplasty outcomes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2020

S Vandenbroeck ,
R Kuhweide  and
B Lerut
S Vandenbroeck*
Affiliation:
Resident Otorhinolaryngology, AZ Sint-Jan Hospital Bruges, Belgium
R Kuhweide
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, AZ Sint-Jan Hospital Bruges, Belgium
B Lerut
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, AZ Sint-Jan Hospital Bruges, Belgium
*
Author for correspondence: Dr S Vandenbroeck, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, AZ Sint-Jan Hospital Bruges, Ruddershove 10, 8000Brugge, Belgium E-mail: nok@azsintjan.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

Multiple tympanoplasty techniques have been developed with numerous differences in grafting and approach. This study aimed to improve type 1 tympanoplasty outcomes by using the ‘en hamac’ technique as well as performing a complete canalplasty for anterior perforations.

Method

A retrospective review was performed using the prospective Otology-Neurotology Database tool for otological surgery. All primary type 1 tympanoplasty cases performed for tympanic membrane perforations from 2010 to 2016 were selected for analysis, all performed by one author. Minimal clinical and audiometric follow up was 18 months.

Results

Tympanic membrane perforation closure was achieved in 62 of the patients (96.88 per cent). None of the en hamac cases had residual or recurrent perforation (p = 0.02). The mean remaining air–bone gap was 8.50 dB. The remaining air–bone gap was less than 10 dB in 72.55 per cent, 10–20 dB in 25.49 per cent and more than 20 dB in 1.96 per cent.

Conclusion

Using the en hamac technique for anterior perforations as well as systematically performing a complete canalplasty provides multiple surgical advantages with excellent post-operative results.

Keywords

TympanoplastyTympanic Membrane PerforationMyringoplasty
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 134 , Issue 9 , September 2020 , pp. 769 - 772
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Dr S Vandenbroeck takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Gladstone, HB, Jackler, RK, Varav, K. Tympanic membrane wound healing. An overview. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1995;28:913–32CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wullstein, H. Theory and practice of tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope 1956;66:1076–93CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schraff, S, Dash, N, Strasnick, B. “Window shade” tympanoplasty for anterior marginal perforations. Laryngoscope 2005;115:1655–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Applebaum, EL, Deutsch, EC. An endoscopic method of tympanic membrane fluorescein angiography. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1986;95:439–43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berliner, KI, Doyle, KJ, Goldenberg, RA. Reporting operative hearing results in stapes surgery: does choice of outcome measure make a difference? Am J Otol 1996;17:214–20Google Scholar
American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation. Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium guidelines for the evaluation of results of treatment of conductive hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995;113:186–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisch, U. Tympanoplasty, Mastoidectomy, and Stapes Surgery. New York: Georg Thieme, 1994;10–34Google Scholar
Vijayendra, H, Ittop, CJ, Sangeetha, R. Comparative study of hearing improvement in type 1 tympanoplasty with and without canalplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;60:341–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tos, M. Cartilage tympanoplasty methods: proposal of a classification. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;139:747–58CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buckingham, RA. Fascia and perichondrium atrophy in tympanoplasty and recurrent middle ear atelectasis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1992;101:755–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyons, SA, Su, T, Vissers, LE, Peters, JP, Smit, AL, Grolman, W. Fascia compared to one-piece composite cartilage-perichondrium grafting for tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope 2016;126:1662–70CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dornhoffer, JL. Cartilage tympanoplasty. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2006;39:1161–76CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jesic, SD, Dimitrijevic, MV, Nesic, VS, Jotic, AD, Slijepcevic, NA. Temporalis fascia graft perforation and retraction after tympanoplasty for chronic tubotympanic otitis and attic retraction pockets: factors associated with recurrence. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2011;137:139–43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jalali, MM, Motasaddi, M, Kouhi, A, Dabiri, S, Soleimani, R. Comparison of cartilage with temporalis fascia tympanoplasty: a meta-analysis of comparative studies. Laryngoscope 2017;127:2139–48CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sauvage, JP, Heurtebise, F, Puyraud, S. Hammock myringoplasty (technique, results). Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol 1996;117:247–51Google Scholar
Peng, R, Lalwani, AK. Efficacy of “hammock” tympanoplasty in the treatment of anterior perforations. Laryngoscope 2013;123:1236–40CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, JP, Wong, YT, Yang, TH, Miller, M. How I do it: anterior pull-through tympanoplasty for anterior eardrum perforations. Acta Otolaryngol 2016;136:414–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Primrose, WJ, Kerr, AG. The anterior marginal perforation. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1986;11:175–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D'Eredità, R, Lens, MB. Anterior tab flap versus standard underlay myringoplasty in children. Otol Neurotol 2009;30:777–81CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lerut, B, Pfammatter, A, Moons, J, Linder, T. Functional correlations of tympanic membrane perforation size. Otol Neurotol 2012;33:379–86CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Voss, SE, Rosowski, JJ, Merchant, SN, Peake, WT. How do tympanic-membrane perforations affect human middle-ear sound transmission? Acta Otolaryngol 2001;121:169–73Google ScholarPubMed
Van Spronsen, E, Brienesse, P, Ebbens, FA, Dreschler, WA. The effects of a canalplasty and a canal wall reconstruction on perceived sound quality: preliminary results. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016;273:3143–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldenberg, RA, Berliner, KI. Reporting operative hearing results: does choice of outcome measure make a difference? Am J Otol 1995;16:128–35Google Scholar
Tan, HE, Santa Maria, PL, Eikelboom, RH, Anandacoomaraswamy, KS, Atlas, MD. Type I tympanoplasty meta-analysis: a single variable analysis. Otol Neurotol 2016;37:838–46CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed