Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-7cz98 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T04:51:45.430Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Endoscopic push-through technique compared to microscopic underlay myringoplasty in anterior tympanic membrane perforations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2018

D E M El-Hennawi ,
M R Ahmed ,
A S Abou-Halawa  and
M A Al-Hamtary
D E M El-Hennawi
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt
M R Ahmed*
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt
A S Abou-Halawa
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt
M A Al-Hamtary
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Mohammed Rifaat Ahmed, Otolaryngology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt E-mail: m_rifaat@hotmail.com Fax: +20 663 415 603
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Microscopic myringoplasty is the most frequently performed procedure for repairing tympanic membrane perforations. The endoscopic transcanal approach bypasses the narrow ear canal segment and provides a wider view.

Methods

An open-label randomised clinical trial was conducted on 56 patients with small anterior tympanic membrane perforations. Perforations were repaired with an endoscopic push-through technique (n = 28) or a microscopic underlay technique (n = 28). Follow up was conducted using endoscopic examination and pure tone audiometry three months’ post-operatively.

Results

Graft success rate was 92.9 per cent in the endoscopic group versus 85.7 per cent in the microscopic group. The corresponding pre-operative mean air–bone gaps were 17.4 dB and 18.5 dB, improving to 6.1 dB and 9.3 dB post-operatively (p > 0.05). Mean air–bone gap closure was 11.4 dB in the endoscopic group and 9.2 dB in the microscopic group (p > 0.05). Mean operative time and estimated blood loss were 37.0 minutes and 29 ml in the endoscopic group, versus 107 minutes and 153 ml in the microscopic group (both p < 0.05).

Conclusion

The endoscopic push-through technique for anterior tympanic membrane perforations is as effective as microscopic underlay myringoplasty; furthermore, it is less invasive and takes less operative time.

Keywords

Middle EarGraftsTympanoplastyOtologic Surgical ProceduresOtitis Media

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 132 , Issue 6 , June 2018 , pp. 509 - 513
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited, 2018 

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

Dr M R Ahmed takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

1Tarabichi, M. Endoscopic transcanal middle ear surgery. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;62:6–24Google Scholar
2Celik, H, Samim, E, Oztuna, D. Endoscopic “push-through” technique cartilage myringoplasty in anterior tympanic membrane perforations. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 2015;8:224–9Google Scholar
3Peng, R, Lalwani, A. Efficacy of “hammock” tympanoplasty in the treatment of anterior perforations. Laryngoscope 2013;123:1236–40Google Scholar
4Gavriel, H, Eviatar, E. Inferior flap tympanoplasty: a novel technique for anterior perforation closure. Biomed Res Int 2013;2013:758598Google Scholar
5Ayache, S. Cartilaginous myringoplasty: the endoscopic transcanal procedure. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2013;270:853–60Google Scholar
6Tarabichi, M, Nogueira, JF, Marchioni, D, Presutti, L, Pothier, DD, Ayache, S. Transcanal endoscopic management of cholesteatoma. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2013;46:107–30Google Scholar
7Badr-El-Dine, M, James, AL, Panetti, G, Marchioni, D, Presutti, L, Nogueira, JF. Instrumentation and technologies in endoscopic ear surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2013;46:211–25Google Scholar
8Glasscock, ME 3rd, Gulya, AJ, eds. Glasscock-Shambaugh's Surgery of the Ear, 5th edn. Hamilton, Ontario: BC Decker, 2003Google Scholar
9Yung, M. Cartilage tympanoplasty: literature review. J Laryngol Otol 2008;122:663–72Google Scholar
10Pothier, DD. Introducing endoscopic ear surgery into practice. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2013;46:245–55Google Scholar
11Presutti, L, Marchioni, D, Mattioli, F, Villari, D. Endoscopic management of acquired cholesteatoma: our experience. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;37:481–7Google Scholar
12Dündar, R, Kulduk, E, Soy, FK, Aslan, M, Hanci, D, Muluk, NB et al. Endoscopic versus microscopic approach to type 1 tympanoplasty in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2014;78:1084–9Google Scholar
13Choi, N, Noh, Y, Park, W, Lee, JJ, Yook, S, Choi, JE et al. Comparison of endoscopic tympanoplasty to microscopic tympanoplasty. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 2017;10:44–9Google Scholar
14Nassif, N, Berlucchi, M, Radaelli de Zinis, LO. Tympanic membrane perforation in children: endoscopic type I tympanoplasty, a newly technique, is it worthwhile? Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2015;79:1860–4Google Scholar
15Lade, H, Choudhary, SR, Vashishth, A. Endoscopic vs microscopic myringoplasty: a different perspective. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2014;271:1897–902Google Scholar
16Dornhoffer, JL. Cartilage tympanoplasty: indications, techniques, and outcomes in a 1,000 patient series. Laryngoscope 2003;113:1844–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar