Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-rxg44 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T15:12:03.473Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative study of sliced tragal cartilage and temporalis fascia in type I tympanoplasty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2015

M M Khan  and
S R Parab
M M Khan*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Maharashtra Institute of Medical Education and Research Medical College, Pune, India
S R Parab
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Maharashtra Institute of Medical Education and Research Medical College, Pune, India
*
Address for correspondence: Dr M M Khan, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, MIMER Medical College, Pune 410507, India Fax: +91 2114 223916 E-mail: drmubarakkhan@yahoo.co.in
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To compare anatomical and audiological results using sliced tragal cartilage and temporalis fascia in type I tympanoplasty.

Method:

A retrospective review was undertaken of primary tympanoplasties using sliced tragal cartilage and temporalis fascia from May 2005 to January 2008. In total, 223 ears were operated on using sliced tragal cartilage graft and 167 using temporalis fascia. Statistical analysis of the outcome data was performed.

Results:

At the two-year and four-year follow ups, successful closure of the tympanic membrane was achieved in 98.20 per cent and 97.75 per cent, respectively, of the cartilage group compared with 87.42 per cent and 82.63 per cent, respectively, of the temporalis fascia group. At the four-year follow up, the average air–bone gap was 7.10 ± 3.01 dB in the cartilage group and 8.05 ± 3.22 dB in the temporalis fascia group.

Conclusion:

The overall success rate for primary cartilage tympanoplasty is higher when using sliced cartilage than with temporalis fascia grafting.

Keywords

External EarFasciaTympanoplastyOutcome Studies

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 129 , Issue 1 , January 2015 , pp. 16 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2015 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1Zhang, ZG, Huang, QH, Zheng, YQ, Sun, W, Chen, YB, Si, Y. Three autologous substitutes for myringoplasty: a comparative study. Otol Neurotol 2011;32:1234–38CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Gamra, OB, Mbarek, C, Khammassi, K, Methlouthi, N, Ouni, H, Hariga, I et al. Cartilage graft in type I tympanoplasty: audiological and otological outcome. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2008;265:739–42CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Khan, MM, Parab, SR. Primary cartilage tympanoplasty: our technique and results. Am J Otolaryngol 2011;32:381–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Tos, M. Cartilage tympanoplasty methods: proposal of a classification. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;139:747–58Google Scholar
5Levinson, RM. Cartilage-perichondrial composite graft tympanoplasty in the treatment of posterior marginal and attic retraction pockets. Laryngoscope 1987;97:1069–74Google Scholar
6Yung, M. Cartilage tympanoplasty: literature review. J Laryngol Otol 2008;122:663–72Google Scholar
7Zahnert, T, Huttenbrink, KB, Murbe, D, Bornitz, M. Experimental investigations of the use of cartilage in tympanic membrane reconstruction. Am J Otol 2000;21:322–8Google Scholar
8Overbosch, HC. Homograft myringoplasty with micro-sliced septal cartilage. Pract Otorhinolaryngol (Basel) 1971;33:356–7Google ScholarPubMed
9Kazikdas, 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;264:985–9Google Scholar
10Albirmawy, OA. Comparison between cartilage–perichondrium composite ‘ring’ graft and temporalis fascia in type one tympanoplasty in children. J Laryngol Otol 2010;124:967–74Google Scholar
11Yamamoto, E, Iwanaga, M, Fukumoto, M. Histologic study of homograft cartilage implanted in middle ear. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1988;98:546–51Google Scholar
12Hamed, M, Samir, M, El Bigermy, M. Fate of cartilage material used in middle ear surgery light and electron microscope study. Auris Nasus Larynx 1999;26:257–62Google Scholar
13Dornhoffer, JL. Cartilage tympanoplasty. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2006;39:1161–76Google Scholar
14Ozbek, C, Ciftçi, O, Tuna, EEU, Yazkan, O, Ozdem, C. A comparison of cartilage palisades and fascia in type 1 tympanoplasty in children: anatomic and functional results. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:679–83Google Scholar
15Onal, K, Arslanoglu, S, Songu, M, Demiray, U, Demirpehlivan, IA. Functional results of temporalis fascia versus cartilage tympanoplasty in patients with bilateral chronic otitis media. J Laryngol Otol 2012;126:22–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Dornhoffer, J. Cartilage tympanoplasty: indications, techniques, and outcomes in a 1,000 patient series. Laryngoscope 2003;113:1844–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Aidonis, I, Robertson, TC, Sismanis, A. Cartilage shield tympanoplasty: a reliable technique. Otol Neurotol 2005;26:838–41Google Scholar