Results of Type I Tympanoplasty Using Fascia with or without Cartilage Reinforcement: 10 Years’ Experience | ||
| Iranian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology | ||
| مقاله 6، دوره 30، شماره 2، خرداد و تیر 2018، صفحه 103-106 اصل مقاله (313.35 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Original | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22038/ijorl.2017.24810.1808 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Ali Kouhi1؛ Mohammad Taghi Khorsandi Ashtiani1؛ Mir Mohammad Jalali* 2 | ||
| 1Otorhinolaryngology Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| 2Rhino-Sinus, Ear, and Skull Base Diseases Research Center, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Introduction: There remains controversy about the optimal kind of graft to repair tympanic membrane. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the anatomical and auditory outcomes of type I tympanoplasty using fascia with or without cartilage reinforcement. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted from 2005 to 2015. All cases were surgically treated by a single surgeon. We excluded cases in which the etiology of chronic otitis media was cholesteatoma. According to the use of cartilage reinforcement in the posterosuperior part of the graft, patients were divided into two groups, and the results of anatomical and auditory evaluation were compared between the two groups. The anatomical outcome was grafting success and the auditory outcome was improvement of air bone gap (ABG). Results: A total of 320 patients were classified in Group A (tympanoplasty with fascia temporalis only) and 346 were in Group B (tympanoplasty with cartilage reinforcement). All patients were followed for at least 2 years. The overall success rate in the two groups was 91.6% and 93.4%, respectively (P=0.3). The most common cause of failure in the two groups was re-perforation (5.6% and 3.8%, respectively). The improvement of ABG in two groups was 18.5 dB and 3.2 dB, respectively. The difference between two groups was statistically significant (P<0.001). Conclusion: In patients with dry perforation of the tympanic membrane, the anatomical success with tympanoplasty with fascia only or with cartilage reinforcement was similar. However, hearing improvement in the fascia only group was greater than in the group undergoing cartilage reinforcement. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Ear cartilage؛ Fascia؛ Hearing؛ Otitis media؛ Tympanoplasty؛ Treatment outcome | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
1. Indorewala S. Dimensional stability of the free fascia grafts: an animal experiment. Laryngoscope. 2002; 112:727–30.
2. Indorewala S. Dimensional stability of free fascia grafts: a human study. Laryngoscope. 2004; 114(3):543–7.
3. Tek A, Karaman M, Uslu C, Habesoglu T, Kilicarslan Y, Durmus R, et al. Audiological and graft take results of cartilage reinforcement tympanoplasty (a new technique) versus fascia. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2012; 669:1117–26.
4. Cabra J, Monux A. Efficacy of cartilage palisade tympanoplasty: randomized controlled trial. Otol Neurotol. 2010;31:589–95.
5. Jalali MM, Motasaddi M, Kouhi A, Dabiri S, Soleimani R. Comparison of cartilage with temporalis fascia tympanoplasty: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Laryngoscope. 2017; 127: 2139–148.
6. Naderpour M, Jabbari Moghadam Y, Ghanbarpour E, Shahidi N. Evaluation of Factors Affecting the Surgical Outcome in Tympanoplasty. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;28:99–104.
7. Kalcioglu1 MT, Tan M, Croo A. Comparison between cartilage and fascia grafts in type 1 tympanoplasty. B-ENT. 2013; 9:235–9.
8. Uslu C, Tek A, Tatlipinar A, Kiliçarslan Y, Durmuş R, Ayöğredik E, et al. Cartilage reinforcement tympanoplasty: otological and audiological results. Acta Otolaryngol. 2010; 130: 375–83.
9. Khan MK, Parab SR. Reinforcement of Sliced Tragal Cartilage Perichondrium Composite Graft with Temporalis Fascia in Type I Tympanoplasty: Our Techniques and Results. J Rhinolaryngo Otolog. 2013;1:57–62.
10. Amedee RG, Mann WJ, Riechelmann H. Cartilage palisade tympanoplasty. Am J Otol. 1989; 10:447–50.
11. Dornhoffer JL. Hearing results with cartilage tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope. 1997;107:1094–99.
12. Gerber MJ, Mason JC, Lampert PR. Hearing results after primary cartilage tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope. 2000;110:1994–99.
13. Zahnert T, Hüttenbrink KB, Mürbe D, Bornitz M. Experimental investigations of the use of cartilage intratympanic membrane reconstruction. Am J Otol. 2000;21:322–28.
14. Mürbe D, Zahnert T, Bornitz M, Hüttenbrink KB. Acoustic properties of different cartilage reconstruction techniques of the tympanic membrane. Laryngoscope. 2002;112:1769–1776.
15. Atef A, Talaat N, Fathi A, Mosleh M, Safwat S. Effect of the thickness of the cartilage disk on the hearing results after perichondrium/cartilage island flap tympanoplasty. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 2007;69:207–11. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 2,041 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 392 |
||