Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-bkrcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-21T18:48:40.396Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative study of efficacy of graft placement with and without anterior tagging in type one tympanoplasty for mucosal-type chronic otitis media

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 October 2011

P Hosamani ,
L Ananth  and
S B Medikeri
P Hosamani*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Sri Siddhartha Medical College Hospital and Research Center, Siddhartha University, Tumkur, India
L Ananth
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Sri Siddhartha Medical College Hospital and Research Center, Siddhartha University, Tumkur, India
S B Medikeri
Affiliation:
Medikeri's ENT Specialty Hospital, Bangalore, India
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Pradeep Hosamani, C-5, 292, B D A Houses, 2nd Stage, 3rd Phase, Domlur, Bangalore 560071, Karnataka, India Fax: +91 8028374117 E-mail: pradeephosamani@yahoo.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

To assess the efficacy of anterior tagging of graft material with respect to graft uptake and hearing results, in type I tympanoplasty.

Study design:

Prospective, randomised, cohort study.

Methods:

Sixty patients with chronic otitis media of the mucosal type, with pars tensa perforations, were included in the study. Patients were randomly allocated to two groups: group one underwent type one tympanoplasty with anterior tagging, while group two underwent type one tympanoplasty without anterior tagging. Follow up included evaluation of graft uptake and hearing improvement.

Results:

There were 33 patients in group one and 27 patients in group two. The overall incidence of successful graft uptake was 96.96 per cent in group one and 81.5 per cent in group two. Closure of central and posterior perforations was successful in 100 per cent of both groups. Closure of anterior and subtotal perforations was successful in 95.45 per cent of group one and 54.54 per cent of group two.

Conclusion:

Type one tympanoplasty with anterior tagging of graft material is a suitable technique for anterior and subtotal perforations.

Keywords

Otitis MediaTympanic Membrane PerforationTympanoplasty

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 126 , Issue 2 , February 2012 , pp. 125 - 130
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2011

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

1Rizer, FM. Overlay vs underlay tympanoplasty. Part I: historical review of literature. Laryngoscope 1997;107:1–25Google Scholar
2Glasscock, ME. Tympanic membrane grafting with fascia: overlay vs underlay technique. Laryngoscope 1973;83:754–770Google Scholar
3Packer, P, Mackendrick, A, Solar, M. What's best in myringoplasty: underlay or overlay, dura or fascia? J Laryngol Otol 1982;96:25–41Google Scholar
4Kartush, JM, Michaelides, EM, Becvarovski, Z, LaRouere, MJ. Over-under tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope 2002;112:802–7Google Scholar
5Gibb, AG, Chang, KK. Myringoplasty (a review of 360 operations). J Laryngol Otol 1982;96:915–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Primrose, WJ, Kerr, AG. The anterior marginal perforation. Clin Otolaryngol 1986;11:175–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Tos, M. Manual of Middle Ear Surgery, Vol I: Approaches, Myringoplasty, Ossiculoplasty and Tympanoplasty. New York: Thieme, 1993;1–236Google Scholar
8Goycoolea, MV. Tympanoplasty. In: Goycoolea, MV, Paparella, MM, Nissen, RL, eds. Atlas of Otologic Surgery. Minnesota: W B Saunders, 1989;230–3Google Scholar
9Sharp, JF, Terzis, TF, Robinson, J. Myringoplasty for the anterior perforation: experience with the Kerr flap. J Laryngol Otol 1992;106:14–16Google Scholar
10D'Eredita, R, Lens, MB. Anterior tab flap vs standard underlay myringoplasty in children: a comparative study. Otol Neurotol 2009;30:777–81Google Scholar
11Scally, CM, Allen, L, Kerr, AG. The anterior hitch method of tympanic membrane repair. Ear Nose Throat J 1996;75:244–7Google Scholar
12James, R. Reconstruction of the middle ear. In: Ludman, H., Wright, T, eds. Diseases of the Ear, 6th edn.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998;430–2Google Scholar
13Singh, M, Rai, A, Bhandyopadhyay, S, Gupta, SC. Comparative study of the underlay and overlay techniques of myringoplasty in large and subtotal perforations of the tympanic membrane. J Laryngol Otol 2003;117:444–8Google Scholar
14Khan, I, Jan, AM, Shahzad, F. Middle ear reconstruction: a review of 150 cases. J Laryngol Otol 2002;116:435–9Google Scholar
15Chopra, H, Munjal, M, Mathur, N. Comparision between overlay and underlay techniques of myringoplasty. Indian Journal of Otology 2001;7:83–5Google Scholar
16Jung, TTK, Park, SC. Mediolateral graft tympanoplasty for anterior and subtotal perforation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005;132:532–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Bertoli, GA, Barbaro, M, Giangrande, V, Bava, G, DeSeta, E, Filipo, R. Fat graft myringoplasty: an office procedure for the repair of small perforations of the tympanic membrane. Mediterranean Journal of Otology 2007;3:120–5Google Scholar
18Adkins, WY, White, B. Type I tympanoplasty: influencing factors. Laryngoscope 1984;94:916–18Google Scholar
19Onal, K, Uguz, MZ, Kazidas, KC, Gursoy, ST, Gokee, H. A multivariate analysis of otological, surgical and patient related factors in determining success in myringoplasty. Clin Otolaryngol 2005;30:115–20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Yuasa, R, Takasaki, T. Persistent perforation after tympanoplasty. In: Alpaer, CM, Bluestone, CD, eds. Advanced Therapy of Otitis Media. Hamilton, Ontario: BC Decker, 2004;440–6Google Scholar
21Schraff, S, Dash, N, Strasnick, B. Window shade tympanoplasty for anterior marginal perforations. Laryngoscope 2005;115:1655–9Google Scholar
22Papas, DG, Simpson, LC. Annular wedge tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope 1992;102:1192–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Goldenberg, RA. Tympanoplasty/ossiculoplasty. In: Edelstein, DR, ed. Revision Surgery in Otolaryngology. New York; Thieme, 2009;71–80Google Scholar
24Saito, T, Tanaka, T, Tokuriki, M. Recent outcome of tympanoplasty in the elderly. Otol Neurotol 2001;22:153–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25Wasson, JD, Papademetrion, CE, Pau, H. Myringoplasty: impact of perforation size on closure and audiological improvement. J Laryngol Otol 2009;123:973–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26Roychaudhuri, BK. 3-Flap tympanoplasty – a simple and sure success technique. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;56:196–200Google Scholar
27Sheehy, JL, Anderson, RG. Myringoplasty: A review of 472 cases. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1980;89:331–4Google Scholar