Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-zlvph Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-15T18:07:22.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation and comparison of type I tympanoplasty efficacy and histopathological changes to the tympanic membrane in dry and wet ear: a prospective study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2015

R Shankar ,
R S Virk ,
K Gupta ,
A K Gupta ,
A Bal  and
S Bansal
R Shankar
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology and Head–Neck Surgery, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
R S Virk*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology and Head–Neck Surgery, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
K Gupta
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology and Head–Neck Surgery, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
A K Gupta
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology and Head–Neck Surgery, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
A Bal
Affiliation:
Department of Histopathology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
S Bansal
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology and Head–Neck Surgery, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
*
Address for correspondence: Dr R S Virk, Department of Otolaryngology and Head–Neck Surgery, PGIMER, Chandigarh 160012, India Fax: +91 172 2744401 E-mail: pgient@rediffmail.com, virkdoc@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

This study aimed to compare the success rate of type I tympanoplasty in active (wet) and inactive (dry) mucosal chronic otitis media.

Methods:

A prospective study was performed of 35 patients each with dry ear and wet ear undergoing type I tympanoplasty in the Otolaryngology Department, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, India. All patients underwent type I tympanoplasty between January 2010 and June 2011 by the post-auricular approach. Samples of the remnant tympanic membrane were sent for histopathological examination.

Results:

After a minimum follow up of one year, the success rate was 88.6 per cent for dry ears and 80 per cent for wet ears. Neither the type (p = 0.526) nor the presence (p = 0.324) of discharge influenced the success rate. Histopathological examination of the tympanic membrane margins was performed for 46 patients: of these, 19 showed evidence of vascularity and 27 did not. There was no significant difference in success rate between groups (p = 0.115).

Conclusion:

The success rate was not influenced by the presence of ear discharge at the time of surgery, and tympanic membrane vascularity did not influence graft uptake.

Keywords

Otitis Media, SuppurativeTympanoplastyVascular

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 129 , Issue 10 , October 2015 , pp. 945 - 949
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

1Browning, GG. Chronic otitis media. In: Gleeson, M, Browning, GG, Burton, MJ et al. , eds. Scott-Brown's Otolaryngology, 7th edn.London: Hodder Arnold, 2008;3: 3396Google Scholar
2House, WF. Myringoplasty. AMA Arch Otolaryngol 1960;71:399–404CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Shea, JJ Jr.Vein graft closure of eardrum perforations. J Laryngol Otol 1960;74:358–62CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Stage, J, Bak-Pedersen, K. Underlay tympanoplasty with the graft lateral to the malleus handle. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1992;17:6–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Potsic, WP, Winawer, MR, Marsh, RR. Tympanoplasty for the anterior-superior perforation in children. Am J Otol 1996;17:115–18Google ScholarPubMed
6Kartush, JM, Michaelides, EM, Becvarovski, Z, LaRouere, MJ. Over-under tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope 2002;112:802–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Yigit, O, Alkan, S, Topuz, E, Uslu, B, Unsal, O, Dadas, B. Short-term evaluation of over-under myringoplasty technique. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2005;262:400–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Tos, M. Late results in tympanoplasty. Arch Otolaryngol 1974;100:302–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Gibb, AG, Chang, SK. Myringoplasty (A review of 365 operations). J Laryngol Otol 1982;96:915–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Booth, JB. Myringoplasty. The lessons of failure. J Laryngol Otol 1974;88:1223–36CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Adkins, WY, White, B. Type I tympanoplasty: Influencing factors. Laryngoscope 1984;94:916–18CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Glassock, ME 3rd, Jackson, CG, Nissen, AJ, Schwaber, MK. Post auricular undersurface tympanic membrane grafting: A follow up report. Laryngoscope 1982;92:718–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Sade, J, Berco, E, Brown, M, Weinberg, J, Avraham, S. Myringoplasty: short and long term results in a training program. J Laryngol Otol 1981;95:653–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Vijayendra, H, Rangam, CK, Sangeeta, R. Comparative study of tympanoplasty in wet perforation v/s totally dry perforation in tubotympanic disease. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;58:165–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Browning, GG. Aetiopathology of inflammatory conditions of the external and middle ear. In: Kerr, AG, ed. Scott-Brown's Otolaryngology, 6th edn.London: Arnold Hodder, 1997;3:15–16Google Scholar
16Vartiainen, E, Nuutinen, J. Success and pitfalls in myringoplasty: follow up study of 404 cases. Am J Otol 1993;14:301–5Google ScholarPubMed
17Ahad, SH. Myringoplasty by homologous temporalis fascia. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1986;38:28–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Yung, MW. Myringoplasty for subtotal perforation. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1995;20:241–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19Landa Aranzábal, M, Rodríguez García, L, Rivas Salas, A, Navarro Sampedro, JJ, Camacho Arrioaga, JJ, Algaba Guimera, J. Myringoplasty: Onlay vs. underlay. Review of 460 cases [in Spanish]. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 1996;47:21–5Google ScholarPubMed
20Sckolnick, JS, Mantle, B, Li, J, Chi, DH. Pediatric myringoplasty: factors that affect success: a retrospective study. Laryngoscope 2008;118:723–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Sheahan, P, Donnelly, M, Kane, R. Clinical features of newly presenting cases of chronic otitis media. J Laryngol Otol 2001;115:962–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22Loock, JW, Naude, N. A randomised controlled trial comparing fresh, dried, and dried-then-rehydrated temporalis fascia in myringoplasty. Clin Otolaryngol 2008;33:97–101CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23Glasscock, ME 3rd.Tympanic membrane grafting with fascia: overlay vs undersurface technique. Laryngoscope 1973;83:754–70CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Sheehy, JL, Anderson, RG. Myringoplasty. A review of 472 cases. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1980;89:331–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25Rizer, FM. Overlay versus underlay tympanoplasty. Part I: historical review of the literature. Laryngoscope 1997;107:1–25CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26Rizer, FM. Overlay versus underlay tympanoplasty. Part II: the study. Laryngoscope 1997;107:26–36CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Nagle, SK, Jagade, MV, Gandhi, SR, Pawar, PV. Comparative study of outcome of type I tympanoplasty in dry and wet ear. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;61:138–40CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Kotecha, B, Fowler, S, Topham, J. Myringoplasty: a prospective audit study. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1999;24:126–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29Raj, A, Tripathi, V. Review of patients undergoing wet myringoplasty. Indian J Otology 1999;5:134–6Google Scholar
30Gersdorff, M, Garin, P, Decat, M, Juantegui, M. Myringoplasty: long-term results in adults and children. Am J Otol 1995;16:532–5Google ScholarPubMed
31Onal, K, Uguz, MZ, Kazikdas, KC, Gursoy, ST, Gokce, H. A multivariate analysis of otological, surgical and patient-related factors in determining success in myringoplasty. Clin Otolaryngol 2005;30:115–20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32Bhat, NA, De, R. Retrospective analysis of surgical outcome, symptom changes, and hearing improvement following myringoplasty. J Otolaryngol 2000;29:229–32Google ScholarPubMed
33Karela, M, Berry, S, Watkins, A, Phillipps, JJ. Myringoplasty: surgical outcomes and hearing improvement: Is it worth performing to improve hearing? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2008;265:1039–42CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34Pignataro, L, Grillo Della Berta, L, Capaccio, P, Zaghis, A. Myringoplasty in children: anatomical and functional results. J Laryngol Otol 2001;115:369–73CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35Lee, P, Kelly, G, Mills, RP. Myringoplasty: does the size of the perforation matter? Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2002;27:331–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed