medigraphic.com
ISSN 2539-0859 (Electronic)
ISSN 0120-8411 (Print)
Asociación Colombiana de Otorrinolaringología y Cirugía de Cabeza y cuello, Maxilofacial y Estética Facial (ACORL)

2023, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Acta de Otorrinolaringología CCC 2023; 51 (4)

A retrospective study of 544 tympanoplasty with cartilage and perichondrium: anatomical and functional results

Matarredona-Quiles S, Ortega-Beltrá N, Martín-Arroyo M, Tamarit-Conejeros JM, Murcia-Puchades V, Pons-Rocher F, Dalmau-Galofre J

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 285-290
PDF size: 138.57 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Different materials are used to close tympanic perforations. This study aimed to compare anatomical results obtained with cartilage and perichondrium and evaluate factors associated with successful results. Material and method: Retrospective study of patients who underwent tympanoplasty without mastoidectomy between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2018. Demographic data, ear pathology, surgical intervention, and anatomical and functional results were collected. Results: 544 tympanoplasty were included. Cartilage was the most used (78.5%). Cartilage was used more frequently in children under 18 years (p = 0.001), to reconstruct total and subtotal perforations (p = 0.000) and in secondary and tertiary tympanoplasty (p = 0.008). Follow-up time did not differ between the two groups (15.68 ± 22.18 months vs. 12.86 ± 14.9 months, p = 0.169). The anatomical success rate was higher in the cartilage group, with no significant differences in hearing outcomes (82% with cartilage and 78.3% with perichondrium). Anatomical success was related to the technique used for cartilage reconstruction (monoblock or palisade). Hearing results were significantly associated with the state of middle ear mucosa at the time of surgery, the state and mobility of the ossicle chain, and post-surgical anatomical success. Conclusions: Cartilage achieved better anatomical results than perichondrium. Both materials were comparable on a functional level. However, the functional results worsen if there is pathology of the middle ear (mucosa or chain of ossicles) and anatomical restoration is not achieved.


REFERENCES

  1. Iacovou E, Vlastarakos PV, Papacharalampous G, KyrodimosE, Nikolopoulos TP. Is cartilage better than temporalis musclefascia in type I tympanoplasty? Implications for current surgicalpractice. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;270(11):2803–13.doi: 10.1007/s00405-012-2329-4

  2. Mohamad SH, Khan I, Hussain SSM. Is cartilage tympanoplastymore effective than fascia tympanoplasty? A systematicreview. Otol Neurotol. 2012;33(5):699-705. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e318254fbc2

  3. Gerber MJ, Mason JC, Lembert PR. Hearing results after primarycartilage tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope. 2000;110(12):1994–9.doi: 10.1097/00005537-200012000-00002

  4. 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(9):2139-48. doi: 10.1002/lary.26451

  5. Jeffery C, Shillington C, Andrews C, Ho A. The palisadecartilage tympanoplasty technique: A systematic review andmeta-analysis. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;46(1):48.doi: 10.1186/s40463-017-0225-z

  6. Amorós Sebastiá LI, Murcia Puchades V, Dalmau GalofreJ, Carrasco Llatas M, López Mollá C, López Martínez R.Timpanoplastia con cartílago: 3 Años de experiencia. ActaOtorrinolaringol Esp. 2002;53(8):578-82. doi: 10.1016/s0001-6519(02)78351-9

  7. Özdamar K, Sen A. Comparison of the anatomical andfunctional success of fascia and perichondrium grafts intranscanal endoscopic type 1 tympanoplasty. J OtolaryngolHead Neck Surg. 2019;48(1):67. doi: 10.1186/s40463-019-0386-z

  8. Cayir S, Kayabasi S, Hizli O. Is type 1 tympanoplastyeffective in elderly patients? Comparison of fascia andperichondrium grafts. Acta Otolaryngol. 2019;139(9):734-8.doi: 10.1080/00016489.2019.1633018

  9. Yegin Y, Çelik M, Koç AK, Küfeciler L, Elbistanlı MS,Kayhan FT. Comparison of temporalis fascia muscle and fullthicknesscartilage grafts in type 1 pediatric tympanoplasties.Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;82(6):695-701. doi: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2015.12.009

  10. Dornhoffer JL. Hearing results with cartilage tympanoplasty.Laryngoscope. 1997;107(8):1094-99. doi: 10.1097/00005537-199708000-00016

  11. Yang T, Wu X, Peng X, Zhang Y, Xie S, Sun H. Comparisonof cartilage graft and fascia in type 1 tympanoplasty:systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Otolaryngol.2016;136(11):1085-90. doi: 10.1080/00016489.2016.1195013

  12. Neumann A, Schultz-Coulon HJ, Jahnke K. Type IIItympanoplasty applying the palisade cartilage technique:A study of 61 cases. Otol Neurotol. 2003;24(1):33-7. doi:10.1097/00129492-200301000-00008

  13. Nicholas BD, O’Reilly RC. Is cartilage preferable to fasciamyringoplasty in children? Laryngoscope. 2010;120(11):2136-7. doi: 10.1002/lary.21006

  14. Lyons SA, Su T, Vissers LE, Peters JP, Smit AL, GrolmanW. Fascia compared to one-piece composite cartilageperichondriumgrafting for tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope.2016;126(7):1662-70. doi: 10.1002/lary.25772

  15. Lagos A, Villarroel P, García-Huidobro F, Delgado V, HuidobroB, Caro J, et al.Timpanoplastias: factores asociados al resultado anatómico yauditivo. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2020;71(4):219-24. doi:10.1016/j.otorri.2019.07.003

  16. Andersen SA, Aabenhus K, Glad H, Sørensen MS. Graft Take-Rates After Tympanoplasty. Otol Neurotol. 2014;35(10):e292–7. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000537




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com