Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-18T21:58:23.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hacettepe cartilage slicer: a novel cartilage slicer and its performance test results

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2017

O Ergun ,
M D Bajin ,
M F Sargon  and
L Sennaroglu
O Ergun*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolarynogology Head and Neck Surgery, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
M D Bajin
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolarynogology Head and Neck Surgery, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
M F Sargon
Affiliation:
Department of Anatomy, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
L Sennaroglu
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolarynogology Head and Neck Surgery, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Onur Ergun, Hacettepe Universitesi, KBB ve BBC Anabiim Dalı, 06100, Sıhhiye, Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey Fax: (0090) 3123 113 500 E-mail: drergun@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

This study investigated the performance of a cartilage slicer device referred to as the ‘Hacettepe cartilage slicer’.

Methods:

Forty-one cartilage pieces were harvested from eight fresh frozen human ears and measured in thickness with a digital micrometer. These pieces were randomly sliced using four different thickness settings and two different types of blades. The thicknesses of the slices and remaining pieces were measured also. Scanning electron microscopy was utilised to determine the surface smoothness of the slices.

Results:

Thickness results showed a proportional increase with the increasing thickness setting, with a ±0.1 mm margin of error. The measurements showed that over 95 per cent of the slices’ structural integrity was preserved. Although both blades provided satisfactory results, scanning electron microscopy revealed that the slices cut with a single bevel blade had superior surface smoothness.

Conclusion:

To our knowledge, the current study is the first to evaluate the performance of a cartilage slicer device. Based on the thickness results, the Hacettepe cartilage slicer fulfilled its design goals: to consistently produce slices at the intended thickness with a ±0.1 mm tolerance, and to preserve over 95.3 per cent of cartilage thickness thereby ensuring undamaged, strong cartilage slices.

Keywords

TympanoplastyMyringoplastyEar Cartilage
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 131 , Issue 8 , August 2017 , pp. 671 - 675
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2017 

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

The preliminary results of this study were presented orally at the 4th National Otology Neuro-otology Congress, 21–24 April 2016, Antalya, Turkey, and at the 10th International Conference on Cholesteatoma and Ear Surgery, 5–8 June 2016, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.

References

1 Khan, MM, Parab, SR. Comparative study of sliced tragal cartilage and temporalis fascia in type I tympanoplasty. J Laryngol Otol 2015;129:16–22 Google Scholar
2 Yung, M. Cartilage tympanoplasty: literature review. J Laryngol Otol 2008;122:663–72Google Scholar
3 Mundra, RK, Sinha, R, Agrawal, R. Tympanoplasty in subtotal perforation with graft supported by a slice of cartilage: a study with near 100 % results. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;65:631–5Google Scholar
4 Murbe, D, Zahnert, T, Bornitz, M, Huttenbrink, KB. Acoustic properties of different cartilage reconstruction techniques of the tympanic membrane. Laryngoscope 2002;112:1769–76Google Scholar
5 Beutner, D, Huttenbrink, KB, Stumpf, R, Beleites, T, Zahnert, T, Luers, JC et al. Cartilage plate tympanoplasty. Otol Neurotol 2010;31:105–10Google Scholar
6 Vashishth, A, Mathur, NN, Choudhary, SR, Bhardwaj, A. Clinical advantages of cartilage palisades over temporalis fascia in type I tympanoplasty. Auris Nasus Larynx 2014;41:422–7Google Scholar
7 Wullstein, H. Technic and early results of tympanoplasty [in German]. Monatsschr Ohrenheilkd Laryngorhinol 1953;87:308–11Google Scholar
8 Kyrodimos, E, Stamatiou, GA, Margaritis, E, Kikidis, D, Sismanis, A. Cartilage tympanoplasty: a reliable technique for smokers. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2014;271:255–60Google Scholar
9 Sapci, T, Almac, S, Usta, C, Karavus, A, Mercangoz, E, Evcimik, MF. Comparison between tympanoplasties with cartilage-perichondrium composite graft and temporal fascia graft in terms of hearing levels and healing [in Turkish]. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg 2006;16:255–60Google ScholarPubMed
10 Cavaliere, M, Panetti, M, Iemma, M. Tragal cartilage shield tympanoplasty: our technique and results in 612 cases. Acta Otolaryngol 2014;134:890–7Google Scholar
11 Garrido, L, Cenjor, C, Montoya, J, Alonso, A, Granell, J, Gutierrez-Fonseca, R. Diagnostic capacity of non-echo planar diffusion-weighted MRI in the detection of primary and recurrent cholesteatoma. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 2015;66:199–204 Google Scholar
12 Khan, MM, Parab, SR. Average thickness of tragal cartilage for slicing techniques in tympanoplasty. J Laryngol Otol 2015;129:435–9Google Scholar

Ergun supplementary material

Ergun supplementary material 1

Download Ergun supplementary material(Video)
Video 33.3 MB