Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:26:40.956Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diagnostic accuracy of intra-operative assessment of de-epithelisation of the malleus by the surgeon in type 1 tympanoplasty compared to histopathological examination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2019

A P Azeez  and
V Letha
A P Azeez
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Government Medical College, Kottayam, India
V Letha*
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology, Government Medical College, Kottayam, India
*
Author for correspondence: Dr V Letha, Dept of Pathology, Government Medical College, Kottayam, Kerala, India, PIN 686008 E-mail: lethadr63@gmail.com Fax: +91 481 259 7284
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

This study was undertaken to determine the accuracy of the surgeon's assessment in detecting epithelial remnants over the malleus after de-epithelisation in tympanoplasty.

Methods

Intra-operatively, the umbo was assessed for epithelial remnants with the microscope. The umbo was then resected and sent for histopathological examination to detect epithelial remnants.

Results

Out of 42 cases, microscopic examination findings for epithelium were positive in 16 cases and negative in 26 cases. Histopathology findings were positive in 13 cases. The surgeons’ assessment was accurate only in two cases.

Conclusion

Residents, with their limited experience, are more likely to leave residual epithelium. When the chance of residual epithelium over the umbo is significant, the surgeon has two choices: to place the graft medial to the umbo or to resect the umbo. It is our opinion that the malleus exteriorisation should be incorporated into tympanoplasty training, with the aim of preventing epithelial entrapment in the middle ear.

Keywords

TympanoplastyMalleusCholesteatomaDiagnostic TestLamina Propria
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 133 , Issue 6 , June 2019 , pp. 462 - 465
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited, 2019 

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 V Letha takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

1Sarkar, S. A review on the history of tympanoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012;65:455–60Google Scholar
2Rizer, FM. Overlay versus underlay tympanoplasty. Part I: historical review of the literature. Laryngoscope 1997;107(12 Pt 2):1–25Google Scholar
3Vijayendra, H, Mahadeviah, A, Surendran, K, Sangeetha, R. Micro ear surgery – its purpose and procedure for tubo tympanic pathology. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005;57:360–3Google Scholar
4Ryan, JE, Briggs, RJ. Outcomes of the overlay graft technique in tympanoplasty. ANZ J Surg 2010;80:624–9Google Scholar
5Sanna, M, Sunose, H, Mancini, F, Russo, A, Taibah, A. Middle Ear and Mastoid Microsurgery, 2nd edn. New York: Thieme, 2012Google Scholar
6Mahadevaiah, A, Parikh, B. Surgical Techniques in Chronic Otitis Media and Otosclerosis. New Delhi: CBS Publishers & Distributors, 2008Google Scholar
7Benzer, M. Talk of the hearing impaired [in Italian]. Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol 1963;67:233–59Google Scholar
8Toynbee, J. On the Use of Artificial Membrana Tympani in Cases of Deafness, Dependent upon Perforation or Destruction of the Natural Organ. London: J Churchill and Sons, 1853Google Scholar
9Blake, CJ. Transactions of the First Congress of the International Otological Society. New York: D Appleton & Company, 1887Google Scholar
10Berthold, E. Overlay myringoplasty [in German]. Wier Med Bull 1878;1:627Google Scholar
11Helmholtz, H. The mechanism of the ossicles of the ear and the membrane tympani [in German]. Pfluger Archiv für Physiologie 1868;1:1–60Google Scholar
12Kulduk, E, Dundar, R, Soy, FK, Guler, OK, Yukkaldiran, A, Iynen, I et al. Treatment of large tympanic membrane perforations: medial to malleus versus lateral to malleus. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015;67:173–9Google Scholar
13Kartush, JM, Michaelides, EM, Becvarovski, Z, Larouere, MJ. Over-under tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope 2002;112:802–7Google Scholar
14Hough, JVD. Tympanoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1994;3:63–6Google Scholar
15Nejadkazem, M, Totonchi, J, Naderpour, M, Lenarz, M. Intratympanic membrane cholesteatoma after tympanoplasty with the underlay technique. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;134:501–2Google Scholar
16Gulya, A. Anatomy of the Temporal Bone with Surgical Implications, 2nd edn. New York: Parthenon Publishing Group, 1995Google Scholar
17Tos, M. Manual of Middle Ear Surgery. New York: Thieme, 1993Google Scholar
18Graham, MD, Reams, C, Perkins, R. Human tympanic membrane – malleus attachment. Preliminary study. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1978;87:426–31Google Scholar
19Van der Jeught, S, Dirckx, JJ, Aerts, JR, Bradu, A, Podoleanu, AG, Buytaert, JA. Full-field thickness distribution of human tympanic membrane obtained with optical coherence tomography. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2013;14:483–94Google Scholar
20El-Seifi, A, Fouad, B. The fibrous annulus in myringoplasty. J Laryngol Otol 1992;106:116–19Google Scholar
21Emir, H, Ceylan, K, Kizilkaya, Z, Gocmen, H, Uzunkulaoglu, H. Success is a matter of experience: influencing factors on type 1 tympanoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2007;264:595–9Google Scholar
22Kutluhan, A, Yalçıner, G, Güler, G, Kösemehmetoğlu, K, Bozdemir, K, Bilgen, AS. Shall we resect the tip of manubrium mallei in tympanoplasty? Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 2011;4:24–6Google Scholar
23Khalifa, MC, Khalifa, BC. Over-under myringoplasty. Med J Cairo Univ 2011;79:165–8Google Scholar