Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-lcgwf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-11T08:31:11.474Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perichondrial flap fold versus raising the tympanomeatal flap for repairing large marginal perforation: semi-random control trial

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2026

Shen Wang ,
Sen Yang  and
Fei Zhou Open the ORCID record for Fei Zhou [Opens in a new window]
Shen Wang
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Suzhou Ninth People’s Hospital, Suzhou City, China.
Sen Yang
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Suzhou Ninth People’s Hospital, Suzhou City, China.
Fei Zhou*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Suzhou Ninth People’s Hospital, Suzhou City, China.
*
Corresponding author: Fei Zhou; Email: zhoufei2025@126.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to compare the graft outcomes between endoscopic cartilage inlay myringoplasty with free perichondrial flap fold technique vs. raising the tympanomeatal flap technique for repairing large marginal perforation.

Methods

A total of 61 ears with marginal perforation were recruited and allocated to free perichondrial flap fold (n = 31) group and raising the tympanomeatal flap (n = 30) group using semi-random control trial. The graft success rate, hearing gain, operation time, visual analog scale score and post-operative complications were compared between the groups at six months.

Results

The mean operation time was 26.4 plus-or-minus 3.1 minutes in the free perichondrial flap fold group and 50.7 plus-or-minus 2.6 minutes in the raising the tympanomeatal flap group (p < 0.001). The graft success rate was 93.5 per cent in the free perichondrial flap fold group and 96.7 per cent in the raising the tympanomeatal flap group (p = 0.977) at post-operative six months.

Conclusion

The free perichondrial flap fold technique may achieve similar graft success rate and hearing improvement as raising the tympanomeatal flap technique for repairing large marginal perforations; however, it is simple, time-saving and minimal invasive technique.

Keywords

cartilageendoscopetympanic membrane perforationmyringoplasty

Information

Type
Main Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 140 , Issue 6 , June 2026 , pp. 635 - 640
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. 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 Zhou takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

‡

This article has been updated since original publication. A notice detailing the change has been published.

References

Sun, J. Comparison of perichondrium-cartilage button technique and traditional over-underlay technique for repairing large perforations. J Laryngol Otol 2024;138:148–52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bluher, AE, Mannino, EA, Strasnick, B. Longitudinal analysis of “window shade” tympanoplasty outcomes for anterior marginal tympanic membrane perforations. Otol Neurotol 2019;40:e173–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
El-Kholy, NA, Salem, MA, Rakha, AM. Endoscopic single versus double flap tympanoplasty: a randomized clinical trial. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2021;278:1395–401CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lou, Z, Lou, Z, Yu, D, Wang, J, Lv, T, Chen, Z. Comparison of perichondrium-cartilage double and single underlay myringoplasty for subtotal perforations: a randomized controlled trial. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2023;280:4861–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berglund, M, Suneson, P, Florentzson, R, Fransson, M, Hultcrantz, M, Westman, E, et al. Tinnitus and taste disturbances reported after myringoplasty: data from a national quality registry. Laryngoscope 2019;129:209–15CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Takihata, S, Kurioka, T, Mizutari, K, Shiotani, A. Factors affecting the incidence of chorda tympani nerve transection in middle ear surgery. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 2022;7:2088–94CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Choi, S-W, Kim, H, Na, H-S, Lee, JW, Lee, S, Oh, S-J, et al. Comparison of medial underlay and lateral underlay endoscopic type I tympanoplasty for anterior perforations of the tympanic membrane. Otol Neurotol 2021;42:1177–83CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vashisth, S, Yadav, SPS, Kumar, P, Gupta, V, Goel, A, Raheja, V. Comparative study of inlay and overlay cartilage perichondrium composite graft myringoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2023;75:372–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lou, Z, Lou, Z, Jin, K, Sun, J, Chen, Z. Excising or preserving perforation margins in endoscopic transtympanic cartilage myringoplasty does not affect surgical success. Clin Otolaryngol 2022;47:94–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lou, Z, Lou, Z, Lv, T, Chen, Z. Comparison of endoscopic modified and typical myringoplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Laryngoscope 2023;133:2779–85CrossRefGoogle 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
Lou, Z, Lou, Z, Lv, T, Chen, Z. Role of topical antibiotic ointment in the lateral graft following underlay myringoplasty: a prospective randomised study. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2023;52:80CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, M, Lou, Z. Graft healing process following cartilage myringoplasty without trimming of the perforation margin. Ear Nose Throat J 2024:1455613241245210Google Scholar
Nakhla, V, Takwoingi, YM, Sinha, A. Myringoplasty: a comparison of bismuth iodoform paraffin paste gauze pack and tri-adcortyl ointment ear dressing. J Laryngol Otol 2007;121:329–32CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borgstein, J, de Zwart, G, Bruce, IA. Ear packing after ear surgery: is it really necessary? J Laryngol Otol 2008;122:253–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Takahashi, M, Motegi, M, Yamamoto, K, Yamamoto, Y, Kojima, H. Endoscopic tympanoplasty type I using interlay technique. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2022;51:45CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bedri, EH, Korra, B, Redleaf, M, Worku, A. Double-layer tympanic membrane graft in type I tympanoplasty. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2019;128:795–801CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linares Casas, A, Ruiz, R, De Pauli, D. Endoscopic type 1 tympanoplasty; a composite graft technique for subtotal and total perforations. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2022;279:181–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arora, RD, Thakur, N, Kamble, P, Jati, M, Nagarkar, NM, Thakur, JS. Circumferential subannular tympanoplasty: surgical and hearing outcome in 224 ears with subtotal perforation. Acta Otolaryngol 2022;142:254–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nemade, SV, Shinde, KJ, Sampate, PB. Comparison between clinical and audiological results of tympanoplasty with double layer graft (modified sandwich fascia) technique and single layer graft (underlay fascia and underlay cartilage) technique. Auris Nasus Larynx 2018;45:440–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ungar, OJ, Cavel, O, Wasserzug, O, Oron, Y, Locketz, GD, Handzel, O. Iatrogenic cholesteatoma originating from a misplaced tympanomeatal flap during tympanoplasty: a series of five patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2020;277:3295–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed