Verdiales-Lugo S, Celis-Aguilar EM, Terrazas-Rubio M, Martínez-Sánchez M

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 200-206
PDF size: 228.43 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: Endoscopic tympanoplasty is a procedure that has gained ground in otological surgery as it is lesser invasive, it provides a visualization of the anatomy and pathology that is not easily achieved with microscopic surgery; however, technically it is a more difficult procedure.
Objectives: To analyze the efficacy of endoscopy tympanoplasty in its different techniques, as well as to analyze the audiometric results.
Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was carried out with patients who underwent endoscopy tympanoplasty with underlay and inlay techniques from January 2017 to December 2019. The results to be measured were hearing improvement corroborated by audiometry and the presence or absence of failures in the integration of the graft.
Results: A total of 10 patients were evaluated, with an average follow-up of 234.9 days and the gain in the pure tone average of the patients in both techniques was 6.7 dB. Two patients operated on with the underlay technique presented reperforation while only one of the patients operated on with the inlay technique has presented reperforation to date.
Conclusions: Similar results were found for the various types of endoscopic tympanoplasty techniques, and the recruitment of patients will continue to carry out a study with a larger sample.

REFERENCES

1. Akyigit A, Sakallıoglu O, Karlidag T. Endoscopic tympanoplasty. J Otol. 2017;12(2):62-67. doi: 10.1016/j. joto.2017.04.004.

2. Kim M, Park J, Suh M, Song C. Comparison of clinical outcomes between butterfly inlay cartilage tympanoplasty and conventional underlay cartilage tympanoplasty. Auris Nasus Larynx 2019; 46 (2): 167-171. doi: 10.1016/j. anl.2018.07.001.

3. Tseng C, Lai M, Wu C, Yuan S, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of endoscopic tympanoplasty and microscopic tympanoplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Laryngoscope 2017; 127 (8): 1890-1896. doi: 10.1002/ lary.26379.

4. Wang W, Lin Y. Minimally invasive inlay and underlay tympanoplasty. Am J Otolaryngol. 2008; 29 (6): 363-366. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2007.11.002.

5. Kuo C, Wu H. Comparison of endoscopic and microscopic tympanoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2017; 274 (7): 2727-2732. doi: 10.1007/s00405-017-4570-3.

6. Flint P, Cummings C. Cummings otolaryngology. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier, Saunders; 2020.

7. Mauri M, Lubianca-Neto JF, Fuchs SC. Evaluation of inlay butterfly cartilage tympanoplasty: a randomized clinical trial. Laryngoscope 2001; 111 (8): 1479-85. doi: 10.1097/00005537-200108000-00027.

8. Huang TY, Ho KY, Wang LF, Chien CY, Wang M. A comparative study of endoscopic and microscopic approach type 1 tympanoplasty for simple chronic otitis media. J Int Adv Otol 2016; 12 (1): 28-31. doi: 10.5152/iao.2015.1011.

9. Mokbel KM, Moneir W, Elsisi H, Alsobky A. Endoscopic transcanal cartilage myringoplasty for repair of subtotal tympanic membrane perforation: A method to avoid postauricular incision. J Otolaryngol Rhinol 2015; 1:010.

10. Sudhir-Babu V, Sreenivasulu M. Endoscopic middle ear surgery case study. Indian J Appl Res 2015; 5 (3): 71-73.

11. Hunter J, O’Connell B, Rivas A. Endoscopic techniques in tympanoplasty and stapes surgery. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2016; 24 (5): 388-394. doi: 10.1097/ MOO.0000000000000297.

12. Furukawa T, Watanabe T, Ito T, et al. Feasibility and advantages of transcanal endoscopic myringoplasty. Otol Neurotol 2014; 35: 140-145. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000298.

13. Patel J, Aiyer R.G, Gajjar Y, Gupta R, Raval J, Suthar P.P. Endoscopic tympanoplasty vs microscopic tympanoplasty in tubotympanic CSOM: a comparative study of 44 cases. Int J Res Med Sci 2015; 3 (8): 1953-1957. https://dx.doi. org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20150307.

14. Kanona H, Virk JS, Owa A. Endoscopic ear surgery: a case series and first United Kingdom experience. World J Clin Cases 2015; 3 (3): 310-317. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v3.i3.310.