Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T23:24:09.739Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Early healing and hearing improvement following type one tympanoplasty using the ‘drum sandwich’ technique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 October 2013

N Mills
N Mills*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Khon-kaen Hospital, Thailand
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Nadtaya Mills, Department of Otolaryngology, Khon-kaen Hospital, 56 Sri-jhun Rd, Khon-kaen 40000, Thailand E-mail: drnadtaya@yahoo.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

The results of a number of tympanic membrane perforation closure techniques have been reported. However, relatively little has been published on the ‘drum sandwich’ technique.

Method:

Retrospective chart review of 123 patients undergoing type one tympanoplasty, performed by one surgeon using the drum sandwich technique.

Results:

Ninety-two per cent of perforations were successfully closed, and 87 per cent of patients had healed ears and were free from aural discharge 6 weeks following surgery. Post-operative hearing data were only available for 81 ears. Of these, 58 per cent had closure of the air–bone gap to within 10 dB. The mean hearing gain for the group was 10.6 dB.

Conclusion:

The drum sandwich technique produces rapid healing of the ear with acceptable hearing outcomes. Drum closure rates are comparable with those reported for other techniques.

Keywords

TympanoplastyMyringoplastyTreatment OutcomeTympanic Membrane PerforationOtitis MediaSuppurative
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 127 , Issue 10 , October 2013 , pp. 957 - 961
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.)

References

1WHO, Chronic suppurative otitis media: burden of illness and management options. In: http://www.who.int/pbd/deafness/activities/hearing_care/otitis_media.pdf [17 August 2012]Google Scholar
2Hirsch, BE. Myringoplasty and tympanoplasty. In: Myers, EN, ed. Operative Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, 2nd edn.Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 2008;1133–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Sergi, B, Galli, J, De Corso, E, Parilla, C, Paludetti, G. Overlay versus underlay myringoplasty: report of outcomes considering closure of perforation and hearing function. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2011;31:366–71Google ScholarPubMed
4Sharp, JF, Terzis, TF, Robinson, J. Myringoplasty for the anterior perforation: experience with the Kerr flap. J Laryngol Otol 1992;106:14–16CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Doyle, JP, Schleuning, AJ, Echevarria, J. Myringoplasty: should grafts be placed medial or lateral to the tympanic membrane? Laryngoscope 1972;82:1425–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Glasscock, ME 3rd.Tympanic membrane grafting with fascia: overlay versus undersurface technique. Laryngoscope 1973;83:754–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Rizer, FM. Overlay versus underlay myringoplasty. Part II the study. Laryngoscope 1997;107:26–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Singh, M, Rai, A, Bandyopadhyay, S, Gupta, SC. Comparative study of the underlay and overlay techniques in large and subtotal perforations of the tympanic membrane. J Laryngol Otol 2003;117:444–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Poonual, W. Success and key factors of myringoplasty in Uttradit Hospital. Buddhachinaraj Medical Journal 2007;24:326–35Google Scholar
10Farrior, JB. Sandwich graft tympanoplasty: experience, results and complications. Laryngoscope 1989;99:213–17CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Pagnini, P, Scarpini, L, Fanfini, F, Norberti, A. Sandwich graft myringoplasty: the authors' personal technique and results. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 1992;12:153–63Google Scholar
12Raghavan, U, Malik, DSI, Mahmoud, NA. Myringoplasty: update on onlay pedicle skin flap and temporalis fascia sandwich graft. J Laryngol Otol 2000;114:174–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Farrior, JB. The anterior tympanomeatal angle in tympanoplasty: surgical techniques for the prevention of blunting. Laryngoscope 1983;93:992–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Gyo, K, Yanagihara, N, Saiki, T, Hinohira, Y. Chronic otitis media and tympanoplasty in aged patients. Auris Nasus Larynx 1990;17:141–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Bhat, NA, De, R. Retrospective analysis of surgical outcome, symptom changes, and hearing improvement following myringoplasty. J Otolaryngol 2000;29:229–32Google ScholarPubMed
16Sakagami, M, Mishiro, Y, Tsuzuki, K, Seo, T, Sone, M. Bilateral same day surgery for bilateral perforated chronic otitis media. Auris Nasus Larynx 2000;27:35–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Ribeiro, JC, Rui, C, Natercia, S, Jose, R, Antonio, P. Tympanoplasty in children: a review of 91 cases. Auris Nasus Larynx 2011;38:21–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Zeitoun, H, Sandhu, GS, Kuo, M, Macnamara, M. A randomized prospective trial to compare four different ear packs following permeatal middle ear surgery. J Laryngol Otol 1998;112:140–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19Nakhula, V, Tawoingi, YM, Sinha, A. Myringoplasty: a comparison of bismuth iodoform paraffin paste and triadcortyl ear dressings. J Laryngol Otol 2007;121:329–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Carlin, WV, Lesser, TH, John, DG, Fielder, C, Carrick, DG, Thomas, PL et al. Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis and reconstructive middle ear surgery. Clin Otolaryngol 1987;12:441–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21John, DG, Carlin, WV, Lesser, TH, Carrick, DG, Fielder, C. Tympanoplasty surgery and prophylactic antibiotics: surgical results. Clin Otolaryngol 1988;13:205–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed