Over-under cartilage tympanoplasty: technique, results and a call for improved reporting

Comparison of perichondrium-cartilage double and single underlay myringoplasty for subtotal perforations: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare graft outcome, operation time and surgical complications of the double and single perichondrium-cartilage underlay techniques for repairing subtotal tympanic membrane (TM) perforations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with unilateral subtotal perforations undergoing myringoplasty were prospectively randomized to undergo DPCN or SPCN. The operation time, graft success rate, audiometric outcomes, and complications were compared between these groups.

RESULTS

In total, 53 patients with unilateral subtotal perforations were included (DPCN group, 27; SPCN group, 26).All patients completed 6 months of follow-up. The mean operation time was 41.2 ± 1.8 min in the DPCN group and 37.2 ± 5.4 min in the SPCN group, the difference was not significant (p = 0.613).The graft success rates were 96.3% (26/27) in the DPCN group and 73.1% (19/26) in the SPCN group, the difference was significant (p = 0.048). During the period of follow-up, residual perforation was found at postoperative in one (3.7%) in the DPCN group, while cartilage graft slipped (graft lateralization) in 2 (7.7%) and residual perforation in 5 (19.2%) were found in the SPCN group, the difference of residual perforation was not significant among two group (p = 0.177).In addition, no significant between-group differences were observed pre- (p = 0.741) or post- (p = 0.687) operative ABG values or mean ABG gain (p = 0.659) (Table 2).The functional success rates (postoperative ABG ≤ 20 dB) were 85.2% (23/27) in the DPCN group and 73.1% (19/26) in the SPCN group (p = 0.454).

CONCLUSION

Although similar functional result and operation time can be obtained with double perichondrium-cartilage underlay technique compared to the single perichondrium-cartilage underlay technique for endoscopic closure of subtotal perforations, double unerlay technique offers better anatomical result with minimum complications.

Comparison of endoscopic underlay and over-under tympanoplasty techniques for type I tympanoplasty

Objective

To compare the indications and efficacy of endoscopic over-under tympanoplasty versus endoscopic underlay tympanoplasty.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing type I endoscopic tympanoplasty via either an underlay or over-under technique by a single surgeon from 2017 to 2021. Patients were excluded if they had a concurrent mastoidectomy, ossiculoplasty, or advanced cholesteatoma defined by involvement of multiple subsites. Patient demographics, perforation size and location, middle ear status, preoperative and postoperative audiograms, and perforation closure were reviewed. Middle ear status was represented using the Ossiculoplasty Outcome Parameter Score (OOPS). The primary outcome was perforation closure at most recent follow-up and secondary outcomes were change in postoperative pure-tone average (PTA) and air-bone gap (ABG).

Results

Of 48 patients, 27 underwent endoscopic underlay tympanoplasty and 21 underwent endoscopic over-under tympanoplasty. Tragal cartilage-perichondrium graft was used in 90% of procedures. Distribution of OOPS scores was not significantly different between groups. Over- under technique addressed significantly larger perforations (mean size of 54% vs. 31%, p < .001) and a higher rate of anterior extension (95% vs. 22%, p < .001) than underlay technique. Perforation closure rate was not different between groups (95% vs. 96%). Patients experienced significant improvement in PTA and ABG in both groups.

Conclusion

The endoscopic over-under tympanoplasty is comparable to endoscopic underlay tympanoplasty in terms of graft take and audiologic improvement. The over-under technique is effective for repairing larger perforations or those with anterior extension.

Level of evidence

IV.