Impact of cartilage graft size on success of tympanoplasty

Factors influencing successful reconstruction of tympanic membrane perforations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Based on a systematic review and meta-analysis, our study aimed to provide information about the factors that influence the success of tympanic membrane reconstruction.

METHODS

Our systematic search was conducted on November 24, 2021, using the CENTRAL, Embase, and MEDLINE databases. Observational studies with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up on type I tympanoplasty or myringoplasty were included, while non-English articles, patients with cholesteatoma or specific inflammatory diseases, and ossiculoplasty cases were excluded. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021289240) and PRISMA reporting guideline was used. Risk of bias was evaluated with the QUIPS tool. A random effect model was used in the analyses. Primary outcome was the rate of closed tympanic cavities.

RESULTS

After duplicate removal, 9454 articles were found, of which 39 cohort studies were included. Results of four analyses showed significant effects: age (OR: 0.62, CI 0.50; 0.78, p value: 0.0002), size of the perforation (OR: 0.52, CI 0.29; 0.94, p value: 0.033), opposite ear condition (OR: 0.32, CI 0.12; 0.85, p value: 0.028), and the surgeon's experience (OR: 0.42, CI 0.26; 0.67, p value: 0.005), while prior adenoid surgery, smoking, the site of the perforation, and discharge of the ear did not. Four factors: etiology, Eustachian tube function, concomitant allergic rhinitis, and duration of the ear discharge were analyzed qualitatively.

CONCLUSIONS

The age of the patient, the size of the perforation, the opposite ear status, and the surgeon's experience have a significant effect on the success of tympanic membrane reconstruction. Further comprehensive studies are needed to analyze the interactions between the factors.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Not applicable.

Comparing Myringoplasty to Type I Tympanoplasty in Tympanic Membrane Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the anatomic success rates of type I tympanoplasty (tympanoplasty) versus myringoplasty. By our definition, tympanoplasty involves entering the middle ear via elevation of a tympanomeatal flap, while myringoplasty involves surgery to the drumhead without middle ear exposure.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane.

REVIEW METHODS

To be included, studies must have documented surgical technique, tympanic membrane (TM) perforation size (as % of TM), and success rate using tissue or alloplastic grafts. Exclusion criteria included series with more than 10% of patients with cholesteatoma or middle ear pathology. A meta-analysis of weighted summary proportions under the random effects model was performed, and proportion differences (PD) were calculated. A secondary analysis of hearing outcomes was performed.

RESULTS

Eighty-five studies met inclusion, with a tympanoplasty cohort of n = 7966 and n = 1759 for myringoplasty. For perforations, less than 50% of the TM, the success rate for tympanoplasty and myringoplasty was 90.2% and 91.4%, respectively (PD: 1.2%, p = .19). In perforations greater than 50%, tympanoplasty and myringoplasty success rates were 82.8% and 85.3%, respectively (PD: 2.5%, p = .29). For both procedures, perforations less than 50% of the TM had higher success rates than perforations greater than 50% of the TM (p < .01). Both techniques endorsed significant improvements to air-bone gap (ABG) metrics.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis suggests that the anatomic success rate is similar for tympanoplasty and myringoplasty, regardless of perforation size, and that smaller perforations experience higher success rates in both techniques. ABG outcomes were also similar between procedure techniques.

Comparing audiometric parameters between crushed and intact cartilage tympanoplasty: a double-blinded, randomised, controlled trial study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate hearing and the take rate of crushed cartilage grafts in tympanoplasty.

METHODS

In this double-blinded, randomised, controlled trial, 46 patients with tympanic membrane perforation were enrolled. A conchal cartilage graft was used for reconstruction in both intervention and control groups. In the intervention group, crushed cartilage was used. The success rate and hearing results were ascertained every four months over a one-year follow-up period.

RESULTS

A total of 36 patients - 20 in the intervention group and 16 in the control group - completed one year of follow up. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in mean air-bone gap, bone conduction threshold, speech discrimination score or speech reception threshold.

CONCLUSION

The reduction in living cells after crushed cartilage tympanoplasty may decrease the rigidity and the volume of the graft, but may not necessarily improve the hearing results.

The Effect of Auricular Graft Donor Site on Morbidity and Cosmetic Appearance in Cartilage Tympanoplasties

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to compare the postoperative morbidity and cosmetic results between the use of the scapha and the use of the tragus as the auricular cartilage graft donor site in patients who had undergone cartilage tympanoplasty. The fascia graft was used as the control.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The patient's visual symmetry, cosmetic satisfaction, and anthropometric measurements were studied to objectively evaluate the cosmetic condition. The formation of skin scar changes, pigmentation changes, and sensory changes as clinical criteria were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 234 patients and their 257 operated ears were included in the study. Forty prospectively operated ears with preoperative findings were also included. All patients (100%) felt that their results were good, as indicated by the visual analog scale, and the anthropometric ear measurements used to reinforce the data showed no significant differences between the groups. A significant difference with respect to clinical sensory changes was found between the groups only in patients undergoing unilateral surgery via the retro auricular approach (p<0.05). There was no difference between the scapha and tragus groups with respect to scar formation or skin pigmentation change.

CONCLUSION

Neither scapha nor tragus use for graft retrieval led to dissatisfaction or cosmetic problems in the postoperative period. Sensory changes in the skin on clinical evaluation were less common in patients in whom the scapha donor site was preferred than in cases in which the tragus was used.