Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T07:32:14.266Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison between cartilage–perichondrium composite ‘ring’ graft and temporalis fascia in type one tympanoplasty in children

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2010

O A Albirmawy
O A Albirmawy*
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology Department, Tanta University Hospital, Egypt
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Osama Amin Albirmawy, Reyad St 88, Tanta 31211, Gharbeya, Egypt. Fax: 0020403305563 E-mail: albirmawy@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

This study aimed to evaluate the anatomical and audiological outcomes of primary type one tympanoplasty performed with a modified cartilage–perichondrium composite ‘ring’ graft, and to compare them with results for primary type one tympanoplasty performed with temporalis fascia, in children.

Study design:

Retrospective clinical study.

Setting:

Otolaryngology department, Tanta University Hospital, Egypt.

Patients and methods:

Records were evaluated for 82 children with dry tympanic membrane perforation (any size) and intact ossicular chain, and with no history of previous ear surgery except for tympanostomy. Patients of similar age and middle-ear pathology were selected to make the two groups as homogeneous as possible. An underlay type one tympanoplasty, using either a ring graft or temporalis fascia, was performed: 40 children were included in the ring graft group and 42 in the temporalis fascia group. All procedures were performed by the same surgeon. A successful anatomical outcome was considered to comprise full, intact healing of the graft without perforation, retraction, lateralisation or blunting, for at least one year post-operatively. Patients' post-operative pure tone average air–bone gap and speech reception threshold were compared with pre-operative levels, within and between the two groups.

Results:

Type one tympanoplasty using a ring graft technique resulted in a significantly greater graft acceptance rate (95 per cent) compared with the temporalis fascia technique (76.2 per cent; p < 0.01). Pure tone average air–bone gap and speech reception threshold levels improved significantly in both the ring graft and fascia groups (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in audiometric results between the two groups (p > 0.05), although there was a trend towards better post-operative results in the ring group.

Conclusion:

In our paediatric patients, type one tympanoplasty with a modified cartilage–perichondrium composite ring graft yielded good anatomical and functional results. The anatomical results obtained using this graft (with its unique appearance and stability during and after surgery) were superior to those for temporalis fascia. The ring graft group had equivalent, if not better, post-operative audiometric results, compared with the temporalis fascia group. Thus, the ring graft is believed to be effective in enabling both tympanic membrane closure and rapid hearing improvement, in the paediatric population.

Keywords

TympanoplastyMyringoplastyTympanic MembraneCartilage
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 124 , Issue 9 , September 2010 , pp. 967 - 974
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2010

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.)

References

1Caylon, R, Titiz, A, Falcioni, M. Myringopasty in children: factors influencing surgical outcomes. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;118:709–13Google Scholar
2Uyar, Y, Keles, B, Koc, S, Oztruk, K, Arbag, H. Tympanoplasty in pediatric patients. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2006;70:1805–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Bluestone, CD, Cantekin, EI, Douglas, GS. Eustachian tube function related to the results of tympanoplasty in children. Laryngoscope 1979;89:450–8Google Scholar
4Gross, CW, Bassila, M, Lazar, RH, Long, TE, Stagner, S. Adipose plug myringoplasty: an alternative to formal myringoplasty techniques in children. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1989;101:617–20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Koch, WM, Friedman, EM, McGill, TJ, Healy, GB. Tympanoplasty in children. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;116:35–40Google Scholar
6Vrabec, JT, Deskin, RW, Grady, JJ. Meta-analysis of pediatric tympanoplasty. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;125:530–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Glasscock, ME. Symposium: contraindications to tympanoplasty. An exercise in clinical judgment. Laryngoscope 1976;86:155–64Google Scholar
8Goodman, WS, Wallace, IR. Tympanoplasty – 25 years later. J Laryngol Otol 1980;9:155–64Google Scholar
9Ophir, D, Porat, M, Marshak, G. Myringoplasty in the pediatric population. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1987;113:1288–90Google Scholar
10Rizer, FM. Overlay versus underlay tympanoplasty. Part I: historical review of the literature. Laryngoscope 1997;107:1–25Google Scholar
11Rizer, FM. Overlay versus underlay tympanoplasty. Part II: the study. Laryngoscope 1997;107:26–36Google Scholar
12Gibb, AG, Chang, SK. Myringoplasty (a review of 365 operations). J Laryngol Otol 1982;96:915–30Google Scholar
13Derlacki, EL. Residual perforation after tympanoplasty: office technique for closure. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1982;15:861–7Google Scholar
14Pfattz, CR, Griesemer, C. Pericard: a new biomaterial for tympanoplasty: preliminary report. Am J Otol 1985;6:266–8Google Scholar
15Ozbek, C, Ciftci, O, Tuna, E, Yazkan, O, Ozdem, C. A comparison of cartilage palisades and fascia in type I tympanoplasty in children: anatomic and functional results. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:679–83Google Scholar
16Atef, A, Talaat, N, Moseleh, M, Safwat, S. Effect of the thickness of the cartilage disk on the hearing results after perichondrium/cartilage island flap tympanoplasty. ORL 2007;69:207–11Google Scholar
17Page, C, Charlet, L, Strunski, V. Cartilage tympanoplasty: postoperative functional results. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2008;265:1196–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Goodhill, V. Tragal perichondrium and cartilage in tympanoplasty. Arch Otolaryngol 1967;85:480–91Google Scholar
19Milewski, C, Giannakopoulos, N, Muller, J, Schon, F. Tragus-perichondrium island transplant in middle ear surgery. Methods and results after 5 years [in German]. HNO 1996;44:235–41Google Scholar
20Mansour, MH, Askar, MH, Albirmawy, OA. Repair of tympanic membrane perforation using a modified cartilage-perichondrium composite ring graft. J Laryngol Otol 2006;120:952–4Google Scholar
21Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium. Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium for the evaluation of results of conductive hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995;113:186–7Google Scholar
22Zoellner, F. The principles of plastic surgery of the sound conducting apparatus. J Laryngol Otol 1955;69:657–9Google Scholar
23Wullstein, HL. Functional operations in the middle ear with split-thickness skin graft [in German]. Arch Otorhinolaryngol 1952;161:422–35Google Scholar
24Dornhoffer, J. Hearing results with cartilage tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope 1997;107:1094–9Google Scholar
25Gerber, MJ, Mason, JC, Lambert, RR. Hearing results after primary cartilage tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope 2000;110:1994–9Google Scholar
26Buckingham, RA. Fascia and perichondrium atrophy in tympanoplasty and recurrent middle ear atelectasis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1992;101:755–8Google Scholar
27Milewski, C. Composite graft tympanoplasty in the treatment of ears with advanced middle ear pathology. Laryngoscope 1993;103:1352–6Google Scholar
28Gamra, OB, Mbarek, C, Khammassi, K, Methlouthi, N, Quini, H, Hariga, I et al. Cartilage graft in type I tympanoplasty: audiological and otological outcome. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2008;265:739–42Google Scholar
29Kerr, AG, Byrene, JET, Smyth, GDL. Cartilage homografts in the middle ear: a long term histologic study. J Laryngol Otol 1973;87:1193–9Google Scholar
30Mills, RB. Management of chronic suppurative otitis media. In: Booth, JB, Kerr, AG, eds. Scott-Brown's Otolaryngology. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1997;3/10/3–5Google Scholar
31Dornhoffer, J. Cartilage, tympanoplasty. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2006;39:1161–76Google Scholar
32Dornhoffer, J. Cartilage tympanoplasty: indications, technique, and outcomes in a 1,000-patient series. Laryngoscope 2003;112:1944–56Google Scholar
33Amedee, RG, Mann, WJ, Riechelman, H. Cartilage palisade tympanoplasty. Am J Otol 1989;10:447–50Google Scholar
34Heermann, J. Auricular cartilage palisade tympano-, epitympano-, antrum- and mastoid- plasties. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1968;3:443–6Google Scholar
35Heermann, J. Autograft tragal and conchal palisade cartilage and perichondrium in tympanomastoid reconstruction. Ear Nose Throat J 1992;61:344–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36Duckert, LG, Müller, J, Mkielski, KH, Helms, J. Composite autograft ‘shield’ reconstruction of remnant tympanic membranes. Am J Otol 1995;16:21–6Google Scholar
37Cavaliere, M, Mottola, G, Rondinelli, M, Iemma, M. Tragal cartilage in tympanoplasty: anatomic and functional results in 306 cases. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2009;29:27–32Google Scholar
38Adkins, WY. Composite autograft of tympanoplasty and tympanomastoid surgery. Laryngoscope 1990;100:244–7Google Scholar
39Eavey, RD. Inlay tympanoplasty: cartilage butterfly technique. Laryngoscope 1998;108:657–61Google Scholar
40Mauri, M. Evaluation of inlay butterfly cartilage tympanoplasty: a randomized clinical trial. Laryngoscope 2001;11:1479–85Google Scholar
41Hartwein, J, Leuwer, RM, Kehrl, W. The total reconstruction of the tympanic membrane by the “Crown Cork” technique. Am J Otolaryngol 1992;13:172–5Google Scholar
42Abou Mayaleh, H, Heshiki, R, Portmann, D, Negrevergne, M. Reinforcing tympanolasty with cartilage mosaic (differences from the palisade technique) [in French]. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord) 2005;126:181–9Google Scholar
43Shin, S, Lee, W, Kim, H, Lee, H. Wheel-shaped cartilage-perichondrium composite graft for the prevention of retraction pocket development. Acta Otolaryngol 2007;127:25–8Google Scholar
44Zahnert, T, Huttenbrink, KB, Murbe, D, Bornitz, M. Experimental investigations of the use of cartilage in tympanic membrane reconstruction. Am J Otol 2002;21:322–8Google Scholar
45Uslu, C, Tek, A, Tatlipinar, A, Kilicarslan, Y, Durmus, R, Ay Ogredik, E et al. Cartilage reinforcement tympanoplasty: otological and audiological results. Acta Otolaryngol 2009;26:1–9Google Scholar
46Gerard, JM, Decat, M, Gersdorff, M. Tragal cartilage in tympanic membrane reconstruction. Acta Otolaryngol Belg 2003;57:147–50Google Scholar
47Puls, T. Tympanoplasty using conchal cartilage graft. Acta Otolaryngol Belg 2003;57:187–91Google Scholar
48Uzun, C, Caye-Thomasen, P, Anderson, J, Tos, M. A tympanometric comparison of tympanoplasty with cartilage palisades or fascia after surgery for tensa cholesteatoma in children. Laryngoscope 2003;113:1751–7Google Scholar
49Anderson, J, Caye-Thomasen, P, Tos, M. A comparison of cartilage palisades and fascia in tympanoplasty after surgery for sinus or tensa retraction cholesteatoma in children. Otol Neurotol 2004;25:856–63Google Scholar
50Perkins, R, Bui, H. Tympanic membrane reconstruction using formaldehyde-formed autogenous temporalis fascia: twenty years' experience. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1996;114:366–79Google Scholar
51Thomasen, P, Anderson, J, Uzun, C, Hansen, S, Tos, M. Ten year results of cartilage palisades versus fascia in ear drum reconstruction after surgery for sinus tensa retraction cholesteatoma in children. Laryngoscope 2009;119:944–52Google Scholar
52Sheehy, JL, Anderson, RG. Myringoplasty: a review of 472 cases. Ann Otol 1980;89:331–4Google Scholar