Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-46n74 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-13T11:27:50.635Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Clinical efficacy of the dumbbell-shaped tragal cartilage-perichondrium air-filled chamber technique for small-to-medium tympanic membrane perforations: a retrospective study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2025

Chao Ji  and
Fei-Fei Xu Open the ORCID record for Fei-Fei Xu [Opens in a new window]
Chao Ji
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Nantong First People's Hospital, Nantong, Jiangsu, China
Fei-Fei Xu*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Nantong First People's Hospital, Nantong, Jiangsu, China
*
Corresponding author: Fei-Fei Xu; Email: 598736@qq.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the dumbbell-shaped tragal cartilage–perichondrium air-filled chamber technique versus the gelatine sponge packing method for small–medium tympanic membrane perforations.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of 68 patients (39 air-filled chamber, 29 gelatine sponge) treated between January 2020 and September 2024. Pre- and post-operative assessments included pure tone audiometry, air–bone gap, tympanic membrane healing, and visual analogue scale scores.

Results

Healing rates were similar (89.7 per cent vs 93.1 per cent, p = 0.959). At six months, pure tone audiometry and air–bone gap improvements were comparable (p > 0.05). At one month, the air-filled chamber group showed better hearing recovery (pure tone audiometry: 19.71 vs 24.27 dB HL; air–bone gap: 7.28 vs 12.28 dB HL; both p < 0.05) and lower pain scores (1.13 vs 1.59, p = 0.022). Complications and operative times were similar.

Conclusion

The air-filled chamber technique is a safe and effective alternative, offering superior early hearing recovery, reduced discomfort, and comparable long-term outcomes to the gelatine sponge method.

Keywords

endoscopytympanic membrane perforationgelatin sponge, absorbableaudiometrysurgical procedure

Information

Type
Main Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 139 , Issue 8 , August 2025 , pp. 757 - 763
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED.

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

Footnotes

Fei-Fei Xu takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Castelhano, L, Correia, F, Colaço, T, Reis, L, Escada, P. Tympanic membrane perforations: the importance of etiology, size and location. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2022;279:4325–33CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kanai, R, Kanemaru, S-I, Yamaguchi, T, Kita, S-I, Miwa, T, Kumazawa, A, et al. Outcomes of regenerative treatment for over 200 patients with tympanic membrane perforation. Auris Nasus Larynx 2024;51:259–65CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, J, Teh, BM, Eikelboom, RH, Han, L, Xu, G, Yao, X, et al. The effectiveness of bFGF in the treatment of tympanic membrane perforations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Otol Neurotol 2020;41:782–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rahman, A, Olivius, P, Dirckx, J, Von Unge, M, Hultcrantz, M. Stem cells and enhanced healing of chronic tympanic membrane perforation. Acta Otolaryngol 2008;128:352–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anari, MR, Yazdi, AM, Kazemi, E, Moghtadaie, A, Farbod, A, Emami, H. Comparison of functional outcomes of cartilage tympanoplasty with silastic sheet versus Gelfoam packing in middle ear. Am J Otolaryngol 2020;41:102588CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhao, X, Zhang, J, Tian, P, Cui, X. The latest progress of tympanic membrane repair materials. Am J Otolaryngol 2022;43:103408CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Varma, A, Bansal, C, Singh, V-P. Tragal perichondrium and composite cartilage graft complimenting endoscopic tympanoplasty in true sense: a comparison. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol 2021;33:137–42Google ScholarPubMed
Lou, Z, Lou, Z, Chen, Z. Effect of packing versus no packing in transperforation myringoplasty for chronic tympanic membrane perforations. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2023;169:1170–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, AS, Betz, JF, Reed, NS, Ward, BK, Nieman, CL. Prevalence of tympanic membrane perforations among adolescents, adults, and older adults in the United States. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2022;167:356–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hsu, Y-C, Kuo, C-L, Huang, T-C. A retrospective comparative study of endoscopic and microscopic tympanoplasty. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018;47:44CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferlito, S, Fadda, G, Lechien, JR, Cammaroto, G, Bartel, R, Borello, A, et al. Type 1 tympanoplasty outcomes between cartilage and temporal fascia grafts: a long-term retrospective study. J Clin Med 2022;11:7000CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sood, AS, Pal, P, Singla, A. Comparative study of type I tympanoplasty using temporalis fascia and tragal cartilage with perichondrium as graft material. Int J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018;4:789–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, Y, Bei, Z, Li, M, Ye, L, Chu, B, Zhao, Y, et al. Biomedical application of materials for external auditory canal: history, challenges, and clinical prospects. Bioact Mater 2024;39:317–35Google ScholarPubMed
Hussain, Z, Pei, R. Necessities, opportunities, and challenges for tympanic membrane perforation scaffolding-based bioengineering. Biomed Mater 2021;16:032004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jain, R, Wairkar, S. Recent developments and clinical applications of surgical glues: an overview. Int J Biol Macromol 2019;137:95–106CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sainsbury, E, Amaral, Rd, Blayney, AW, Walsh, RM, O’Brien, FJ, O’Leary, C. Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine strategies for the repair of tympanic membrane perforations. Biomater Biosyst 2022;6:100046Google ScholarPubMed