ComparativeStudyinType1Tympanoplasty–UmbrellaTechnique (Perichondrium with Cartilage Composite Graft) Vs Temporalis Fascia Graft in Tertiary Care Hospital
Authors/Creators
- 1. Assistant Professor, Department of ENT, Government Medical College, Pulivendula, Andhra Pradesh
- 2. Associate Professor, Department of ENT, Government Medical College, Anantapuramu, Andhra Pradesh
- 3. Associate Professor, Department of ENT, Fathima Institute of Medical Sciences, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh
- 4. Assistant Professor, Department of ENT, Government Medical College, Anantapuramu, Andhra Pradesh
Description
Background: Perforation of tympanic membrane in Chronic Suppurative Otitis Media is usually surgically corrected by Tympanoplasty. Various graft materials are tried for its reconstruction like periosteum, perichondrium, cartilage, vein & fat. The cartilage with perichondrium was used as a composite graft to study the long term results. Aim of the Study: To evaluate and compare the results in terms of uptake, auditory gain and complications using umbrella technique (perichondrium with cartilage) composite graft versus temporalis fascia graft in the patients who underwent Type–1 tympanoplasty. Materials: A prospective observational study was conducted on 60 CSOM patients with Tubotympanic type of disease. In 30 patients cartilage graft and in another 30 patients Temporalis fascia graft was used for Tympanoplasty Type-I. The graft uptake, Air conduction hearing threshold gain and complications were observed over a period of 06 months and the data was analysed. Results: The graft uptake was 100% in the cartilage graft group and 93.3% in the Temporalis fascia group. Air conduction hearing gain was unequivocal in the two groups and the p value was <0.05. Conclusions: The graft uptake in Umbrella technique (Perichondrium with cartilage composite graft) showed 100% success rate when compared with temporalis fascia graft. it was 93.3%. The hearing improvement in Umbrella technique (perichondrium with cartilage composite graft) was almost equal without any significant difference when compared with temporalis fascia graft technique group.
Abstract (English)
Background: Perforation of tympanic membrane in Chronic Suppurative Otitis Media is usually surgically corrected by Tympanoplasty. Various graft materials are tried for its reconstruction like periosteum, perichondrium, cartilage, vein & fat. The cartilage with perichondrium was used as a composite graft to study the long term results. Aim of the Study: To evaluate and compare the results in terms of uptake, auditory gain and complications using umbrella technique (perichondrium with cartilage) composite graft versus temporalis fascia graft in the patients who underwent Type–1 tympanoplasty. Materials: A prospective observational study was conducted on 60 CSOM patients with Tubotympanic type of disease. In 30 patients cartilage graft and in another 30 patients Temporalis fascia graft was used for Tympanoplasty Type-I. The graft uptake, Air conduction hearing threshold gain and complications were observed over a period of 06 months and the data was analysed. Results: The graft uptake was 100% in the cartilage graft group and 93.3% in the Temporalis fascia group. Air conduction hearing gain was unequivocal in the two groups and the p value was <0.05. Conclusions: The graft uptake in Umbrella technique (Perichondrium with cartilage composite graft) showed 100% success rate when compared with temporalis fascia graft. it was 93.3%. The hearing improvement in Umbrella technique (perichondrium with cartilage composite graft) was almost equal without any significant difference when compared with temporalis fascia graft technique group.
Files
IJPCR,Vol16,Issue7,Article217.pdf
Files
(2.9 MB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:00b6f2fcb9648ac8f060b6afda3302c4
|
2.9 MB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Dates
- Accepted
-
2024-06-29
Software
- Repository URL
- https://impactfactor.org/PDF/IJPCR/16/IJPCR,Vol16,Issue7,Article217.pdf
- Development Status
- Active
References
- 1. De Seta E, Covelli E, De Seta D, Mancini Filipo R: Cartilage how to reduce surgery time. J Laryngol Otol 2010;124: 784–785. 2. Zhang ZG, Huang QH, Zheng YQ, Sun W, Chen YB, Si Y. Three autologous substitutes for myringoplasty: a comparative study. Otol Neurotol. 2011; 32:1234–38 3. Zo¨llner F. The principles of plastic surgery of the sound conducting apparatus. J Laryngol Otol. 1995; 69:65-69. 4. Wulstein HL. Funktionelle Operationenim Mittelohrmithilfe desfrein Spaltlappentransplantates. Arch Otorhinolaryngol 1952; 16: 422Y435 5. Domhoffer JL. (1997): Hearing results with cartilage tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope; l07: 1094-9. 6. Kazikdas KC, Onal K, Boyraz I, Karabulut E. (2007): Palisade cartilage tympanoplasty for management of subtotal perforations: a comparison with the temporalis fascia technique. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 264:985-989. 7. TosM. Cartilage tympanoplasty methods: proposal of a classification. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008; 139:747–58 8. Yung M. Cartilage tympanoplasty: literature review. J LaryngolOtol2008; 122:663–72 9. Dornhoffer JL. Cartilage tympanoplasty: indications, techniques, and outcomes in a 1000 patient series. Laryngoscope. 2003; 113:1844- 56. 10. Boone RT, Gardner EK, Dornhoffer JL. Success of cartilage grafting in revision tympanoplasty without mastoidectomy. Otol Neurotol. 2004; 25:678-81. 11. Khan MM, ParabSR. Primary cartilage tympanoplasty: our technique and results. Am J Otolaryngol 2011; 32:381–7. 12. Albirmawy OA. Comparison between cartilage–perichondrium composite ‗ring'graft and temporalis fascia in type one tympanoplasty in children. J LaryngolOtol2010; 124:967–74 13. Committee on conservation of hearing of the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology. Standard classification for surgery of chronic ear disease. ArchOtolaryngol. 1965; 81:204-205. 14. Heermann J. Experiences with free transplantation of facia connective tissue of the temporalis muscle in tympanoplasty and reduction of the size of the radical cavity. Cartilage Bridge from the stapes to the lower border of the tympanic membrane. Z LaryngolRhinol Otol 1962; 41:141Y155. 15. Sismanis A. Tympanoplasty. Glasscock – Shambaugh surgery of the ear. Ed: 5, BC Decker Inc; 2003:463-83. 16. Berthold E. Ueber Myringoplastik. Wein Med B11878; 1: 1627-630. 17. Sahan M, Derin S, Deveer M, Saglam O, Cullu N, Sahan L. Factors Affecting Success and Results of Cartilage- Perichondrium Island Graftin Revision Tympanoplasty. IntAdv Otol. 2014;10(1):64-67.doi:10.5152/iao.2014.014. 18. Mauri M, Neto JFL, Fuchs SC.(2001) Evaluation of inlay butterfly cartilage tympanoplasty: a randomised clinical trial. Laryngoscope 111:1479Y8. 19. S.H. Mohamad, I. Khan, and S.S.M. Hussain, ―Is cartilage tympanoplasty more effective than fascia tympanoplasty? A systematic review, Otology and Neurotology, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 699–705,2012. 20. Sood AS et al. International Journal of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Int J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018 May;4(3):789-793. 21. Altuna, Xabier & Navarro, Juan & Martinez, Zuriñe & Lobato, Rocío & Algaba, Jesús. Island cartilage myringoplasty. Anatomical and functional results in 122 cases. Acta otorrinolaringológica española. 2009; 61: 100-5. 10.1016/S2173- 5735(10)70017-X. 22. Al lackany M, Sarkis NN. Functional results after myringoplasty and Type 1 tympanoplasty with the use of different graft materials. J Med Res Inst. 2005; 26:369Y74. 23. Gurshinderpal SinghShergillet.al., Cartilage Myringoplasty and observed an Ideal 24. Grafting Technique for Complex Perforations ojolhns. 2016; 10.2:74- 79. 25. Aidonis I, Robertson TC, Sismanis A. Cartilage shield tympanoplasty: A reliable technique. Otol Neurotol. 2005;26(5):838–41. 26. Booth JB. Myringoplasty factors affecting results. Final report: Journal of Laryngology and Otolgy 1973 Nov; 87:1039-84. 27. Shekharappa, Munish Kambatatti, and Shruthi Malavalli Siddappa. ―Cartilage Myringoplasty: An Ideal Grafting Technique for Complex Perforations. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research: JCDR; 2017.11,7: 06-08. 28. Cavaliere M, Mottola G, Rondinelli M, Iemma M. Tragal cartilage in tympanoplasty: Anatomic and functional results in 306 cases. Acta Otorhinolaryngologica Italica. 2009; 29:27–32. 29. Aidonis I, Robertson TC, Sismanis A. Cartilage shield tympanoplasty: A reliable technique. Otol Neurotol. 2005; 26(5):838–41. 30. Vadiya S, Parikh V, Shah S, Pandya P, Kansara A. Comparison of modified cartilage shield tympanoplasty with tympanoplasty using temporalis fascia only: Retrospective analysis of 142 cases. Hindawi Publishing Corporation Scientifica. 2016; 2016:8092328. 31. Garcia RB, Suarez M- Varela, Conejeros T, Porras GA, Puchades VM, Galofre JD. Myringoplasties. A retrospective analysis of our surgical outcomes. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2011; 62(3):213–19. 32. Chen XW, Yang H, Gao RZ, Yu R, Gao ZQ. Perichondrium/cartilage composite graft for repairing large tympanic membrane perforations and hearing improvement. Chinese Medical Journal. 2010;123(3):301–04. 33. Dabholkar JP, Vora K, Sikdar A. Comparative study of underlay tympanoplasty with temporalis fascia and tragal perichondrium. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007; 59:116- 9. 34. Zulkifal Awan, Habib Bashir, Altaf Hussain. Myringoplasty. A comparative study of different graft materials and various surgical techniques. Ann Pak Inst Med Sci. 2008;4(4):209- 11. 35. Kalcioglu MT, Firat Y, Selimoglu E. Cartilage tympanoplasty with island technique: A comparison with the temporalis muscle fascia technique. Int Adv Otol. 2009;5(1):45-50. 36. Sahan M, Derin S, Deveer M, Saglam O, Cullu N, Sahan L. Factors Affecting Success and Results of Cartilage- Perichondrium Island Graft in Revision Tympanoplasty. Int Adv Otol. 2014;10(1):64-67.doi:10.5152/iao.2014.014.