Journal of Audiology & Otology

The Korean Audiology Society (대한청각학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Myringoplasty Outcomes From a 5-Year Single Surgeon's Experience and Important Surgical Technical Aspects

  • Karunaratne, Dilhara (Department of Otolaryngology, Eastbourne District General Hospital) ;
  • Violaris, Nick (Department of Otolaryngology, Eastbourne District General Hospital)
  • Received : 2021.05.15
  • Accepted : 2021.07.07
  • Published : 2021.10.20
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background and Objectives: The United Kingdom (UK) national standard for the closure rate for myringoplasty is 89.5% (90.6% and 84.2% for primary and revision surgeries, respectively). The average hearing gains for primary and revision myringoplasty are 9.14 dB and 7.86 dB, respectively. This study compared the myringoplasty outcomes for a single surgeon over 5 years. Subjects and Methods: Data for 68 cases were analyzed retrospectively. The outcome measures were achievement of the tympanic membrane closure and the average hearing gain or loss. Results: The overall and primary closure rates were 97% and 98%, respectively and significantly higher than the UK national standard (p=0.0210 and p=0.0287, respectively). The revision closure rate was 93%; however, it was not significantly higher than the national standard (p=0.1872). The average hearing gain was 5.18 dB. The gains for primary and revision surgeries were 5.15 dB and 5.25 dB, respectively. Conclusions: We propose that these outcomes are a result of our surgical technique, including the simultaneous use of cortical mastoidectomy in ears with discharge.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Dr. Gwyn Jones who was responsible for the analysis of the data. Mr. Ravi Nokku (paediatric audiologist) and Mrs. Karen Brett (senior audiology administrator) both of whom were of enormous help in obtaining audiograms. Mrs. Ciara Pooley (theatre administrator) who helped provide a list of patients who underwent myringoplasty during the specified time period.

References

  1. Phillips JS, Yung MW, Nunney I. Myringoplasty outcomes in the UK. J Laryngol Otol 2015;129:860-4. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002221511500198X
  2. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med 2007;147:573-7. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010
  3. Chidlow C, Prunty S, Hinton-Bayre A, Shubhraj S, Renton J, Kuthubutheen J. Practice patterns in myringoplasty surgery among Australian surgeons. Aust J Otolaryngol 2020;3:28 https://doi.org/10.21037/ajo-19-5
  4. Hirsch BE. Myringoplasty and tympanoplasty. In: Operative Otolaryngology: Head and Neck Surgery (ed. Myers EN), 2nd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders;2008. p.1133-45.
  5. Aggarwal R, Saeed SR, Green KJ. Myringoplasty. J Laryngol Otol 2006;120:429-32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215106000697
  6. Salvador P, Gomes P, Silva F, Fonseca R. Type I tympanoplasty: surgical success and prognostic factors. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp (Engl Ed) 2021;72:182-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otorri.2020.04.009
  7. Patil K, Baisakhiya N, Deshmukh PT. Evaluation of different graft material in type 1 tympanoplasty. Indian J Otol 2014;20:106. https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-7749.136844
  8. Odat H, Alali M, Kanaan Y, Al-Qudah M. Success rate of type 1 tympanoplasty: a comparative study. J Laryngol Otol 2021;135:315-9. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215121000645
  9. Kulduk E, Dundar R, Soy FK, Guler OK, Yukkaldiran A, Iynen I, et al. Treatment of large tympanic membrane perforations: medial to malleus versus lateral to malleus. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015;67:173-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-015-0846-3
  10. Gersdorff M, Gerard JM, Thill MP. Overlay versus underlay tympanoplasty. Comparative study of 122 cases. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord) 2003;124:15-22.
  11. de Savornin Lohman EAJ, Borgstein J. Transmeatal tympanoplasty of subtotal and anterior perforations: a single-institution experience including 94 patients. Clin Otolaryngol 2017;42:920-3. https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.12829
  12. Khawaja M, Sajid T, Aziz T, Ashfaq U, Khan A. Comparison of graft uptake by underlay and overlay technique in myringoplasty. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2020;32(Suppl 1):S640-3.
  13. Sharp JF, Terzis TF, Robinson J. Myringoplasty for the anterior perforation: experience with the Kerr flap. J Laryngol Otol 1992;106:14-6. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002221510011847X
  14. Tos M. Manual of middle ear surgery. 1st ed. New York: Thieme;1993. p.5.
  15. McGrew BM, Jackson CG, Glasscock ME 3rd. Impact of mastoidectomy on simple tympanic membrane perforation repair. Laryngoscope 2004;114:506-11. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005537-200403000-00023
  16. Albu S, Trabalzini F, Amadori M. Usefulness of cortical mastoidectomy in myringoplasty. Otol Neurotol 2012;33:604-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/mao.0b013e31825368f2
  17. Vaidya S, Sharma JK, Singh G. Study of outcome of tympanoplasties in relation to size and site of tympanic membrane perforation. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014;66:341-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-014-0733-3