medigraphic.com
Anales de Otorrinolaringología Mexicana

2021, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Otorrinolaringología 2021; 66 (2)

Effectiveness of tympanoplasty with double vs simple fascia graft

Galindo-Tapia MF, Acosta-Banda CA, Hernández-González MA

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 119-127
PDF size: 244.05 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine the effectiveness of tympanoplasty with double fascia graft for treatment of tympanic perforation compared to simple fascia grafts.
Materials and Methods: A randomized, experimental, longitudinal, clinical study carried out from April 2019 to August 2020. Two groups were studied: group I with tympanoplasty with simple fascia and group II with double fascia. The patients were reviewed at 7, 30 and 60 days, assessing the integration of the graft and a control audiometry was performed at 60 days. The comparison between groups was made using χ2 or Fisher’s exact test for qualitative variables and Student’s t or U Mann-Whitney for quantitative ones. p values less than 0.05 were considered significant.
Results: Forty patients were included, 20 in each group with a success rate in 10 out of 20 in group I and in 17 out of 20 in group II at 60 days with a statistically significant difference (p = 0.041). In hearing gain, no statistically significant differences were found (p = 0.741).
Conclusions: The double fascia graft was more effective in closing the tympanic perforation compared to the simple fascia graft at 60 days.


REFERENCES

  1. Ordóñez LE, Vitery EL, González MN, Parra VD, et al. Timpanoplastia en perforación timpánica secundaria a trauma por onda explosiva. Rev Fac Med 2014; 22 (2): 20-31.

  2. Lou Z, Lou Z, Tang Y, Xiao J. Utility of basic fibroblast growth factor in the repair of blast-induced total or near-total tympanic membrane perforations: A pilot study. Am J Otolaryngol 2015; 36 (6): 794-7. doi. 10.1016/j.amjoto.2015.08.007.

  3. Drnhoffer JL, Gluth MB. Reconstruction of the tympanic Membrane and Ossicular Chain. En: Johnson JT, Rosen CA. Bailey's Head and Neck Surgery-Otolaryngology.Vol 2. 5th ed. China: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2015; 2465-2486.

  4. Adams ME, El-Kashlan H. Tympanoplasty and ossiculoplasty. En: Flint P, Haughey B, Lund V, et al. Cummings Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery. Vol II. 7th ed. Elsevier, 2020; 8285-8324.

  5. Tan HE, Santa Maria PL, Eikelboom RH, Anandacoomaraswamy KS, et al. Type I tympanoplasty meta-analysis: A single variable analysis. Otol Neurotol 2016; 37 (7): 838–46. doi. 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001099.

  6. Cavaliere M, Panetti M, Iemma M. Tragal cartilage shield tympanoplasty: Our technique and results in 612 cases. Acta Otolaryngol 2014; 134 (9): 890-897. doi. 10.3109/00016489.2014.899710.

  7. Jalali MM, Motasaddi MM, Kuohi A, Dabiri S, et al. Comparison of cartilage with temporalis fascia tympanoplasty: a meta-analysis of comparative studies. Laryngoscope 2017; 127: 2139–2148. doi. 10.1002/lary.26451.

  8. Salviz M, Bayram O, Bayram AA, Balikci HH, et al. Prognostic factors in type I tympanoplasty. Auris Nasus Larynx 2015; 42 (1): 20–23. doi. 10.1016/j.anl.2014.08.010.

  9. Remenschneider AK, Lookabaugh S, Aliphas A, Brodsky JR, et al. Otologic outcomes after blast injury: The Boston marathon experience. Otol Neurotol 2014; 35 (10): 1825- 1834. doi. 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000616.

  10. Jeffery CC, Shillington C, Andrews C, Ho A. The palisade cartilage tympanoplasty technique: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017; 46 (1): 46-48. doi. 10.1186/s40463-017-0225-z.

  11. Vos JD, Latev MD, Labadie RF,Cohen SM, et al. Use of Allo- Derm in type I tympanoplasty: A comparison with native tissue grafts. Laryngoscope 2005; 115 (9): 1599–1602. doi. 10.1097/01.mlg.0000172042.73024.ad.

  12. Eren SB, Tugrul S, Ozucer B, Dogan R, et al. A randomized prospective trial of a novel device for measuring perforation size during inlay “butterfly” myringoplasty. Am J Otolaryngol 2014; 35 (3): 305-308. doi. 10.1016/j.amjoto.2014.02.007.

  13. Storss LA. Myringoplasty with the use of fascia grafts. Arch Otolaryngol 1961; 74 (1): 45-49. doi. 10.1001/archotol. 1961.00740030048010.

  14. Ayache S, Braccini F, Facon F, Thomassin JM. Adipose graft: An original option in myringoplasty. Otol Neurotol 2003; 24 (1): 158–164. doi. 10.1097/00129492-200303000-00007.

  15. Özbay C, Soy FK, Kulduk E, Dundar R, et al. Boomerangshaped vs. shield-shaped chondroperichondrial cartilage grafts for type 1 tympanoplasty in children: A study of 121 patients. Ear Nose Throat J 2017; 96 (10–11): 419–32. oi: 10.1177/0145561317096010-1121.

  16. Dündar R, Soy FK, Kulduk E, Muluk NB, et al. A new grafting technique for tympanoplasty: Tympanoplasty with a boomerang- shaped chondroperichondrial graft (TwBSCPG). Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 2014; 271 (10): 2687-2694. doi. 10.1007/s00405-013-2764-x.

  17. Durán-Padilla CL, Martínez-Chávez J. Timpanoplastia con cartílago en isla en el tratamiento de la perforación de membrana timpánica de alto riesgo comparada con el uso de fascia temporal. An Orl Mex 2017; 62 (2): 89-96.

  18. Chrobok V, Pellant A, Meloun M, Pokomy K, et al. Prognostic factors for hearing preservation in surgery of chronic otitis media. Int Adv Otol 2009; 5 (3): 310-317.

  19. Sharma A, Saxena RK, Verma LR, Bhandari S. Correlation between MERI and hearing after tympanoplasty. JNGMC 2015; 13 (2): 6-9. https://doi.org/10.3126/jngmc. v13i2.16533.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com