Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2017; 21(03): 250-254
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1593818
Original Research
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Study of Various Prognostic Factors Affecting Successful Myringoplasty in a Tertiary Care Centre

Kripa Dangol
1   Department of Ganesh Man Singh Memorial Academy of Ear, Nose, Throat - Head and Neck Surgery, Institute of Medicine, Maharajgunj, Kathmandu, Nepal
,
Rakesh Prasad Shrivastav
1   Department of Ganesh Man Singh Memorial Academy of Ear, Nose, Throat - Head and Neck Surgery, Institute of Medicine, Maharajgunj, Kathmandu, Nepal
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

16 September 2015

18 September 2016

Publication Date:
28 November 2016 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Myringoplasty is a commonly performed otologic surgery.

Objectives The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of prognostic factors like - size, site of perforation, status of operating ear, approach, status of contralateral ear, experience of surgeon, primary or revision myringoplasty, and smoking in graft uptake, as well as to evaluate the hearing results after myringoplasty.

Methods This is a prospective study. We included in our sample patients aged over 13 years with a Tubotympanic Chronic Otitis Media diagnosis. The patients underwent preoperative evaluation and Pure Tone Audiogram within one week prior to surgery. We performed myringoplasty using temporalis fascia graft with conventional underlay technique. We evaluated postoperative graft uptake and various factors related to the study and did a Pure Tone Audiogram at one year after surgery.

Results The graft uptake rate after myringoplasty was 83.1% at one year in 219 patients. Graft uptake with normal opposite ear was 88.2%, and with Tubotympanic Chronic Otitis Media was 75% (statistically significant). We found no statistically significant difference in graft uptake results with other factors. We calculated hearing results of 132 patients with normal ossicular status who underwent myringoplasty. The average Air Conduction Threshold improvement was 11.44dB (p < 0.001) and the average Air-Bone Gap closure was 8.89dB, highly statistically significant (p < 0.001).

Conclusion Diseased contralateral ear was a statistically significant poor prognostic factor for graft uptake after myringoplasty. Other factors studied were not statistically significant determining factor for graft uptake. Hearing improves significantly after myringoplasty if the ossicles are normal.

Keywords

myringoplasty - fascia - tympanic membrane perforation
 

  • References

  • 1 Browning GG, Merchant SN, Kelly G, Swan IR, Canter R, McKerro WS. Chronic otitis media. In: Gleeson M. , editor. Scott-Brown's Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery. 7th ed. Vol 3. London: Edward Arnold; 2008: 3345-95
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Berman S. Otitis media in developing countries. Pediatrics 1995; 96 (1 Pt 1): 126-131
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Little P, Bridges A, Guragain R, Friedman D, Prasad R, Weir N. Hearing impairment and ear pathology in Nepal. J Laryngol Otol 1993; 107 (05) 395-400
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Manolidis S. Closure of tympanic membrane perforations. In: Glasscock ME. , editor. Glasscock-Shambaugh's Surgery of the Ear. 5th ed. Hamilton: BC Decker; 2003: 400-19
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Caylan R, Titiz A, Falcioni M. , et al. Myringoplasty in children: factors influencing surgical outcome. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998; 118 (05) 709-713
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Golz A, Goldenberg D, Netzer A. , et al. Paper patching for chronic tympanic membrane perforations. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003; 128 (04) 565-570
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Sakagami M, Yuasa R, Yuasa Y. Simple underlay myringoplasty. J Laryngol Otol 2007; 121 (09) 840-844
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Ashfaq M, Aasim UM, Khan N. Myringoplasty: Anatomical and functional results. Pak Armed Forces Med J 2004; 54 (02) 155-158
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Knapik M, Saliba I. Pediatric myringoplasty: a study of factors affecting outcome. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2011; 75 (06) 818-823
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Wasson JD, Papadimitriou CE, Pau H. Myringoplasty: impact of perforation size on closure and audiological improvement. J Laryngol Otol 2009; 123 (09) 973-977
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Gersdorff M, Garin P, Decat M, Juantegui M. Myringoplasty: long-term results in adults and children. Am J Otol 1995; 16 (04) 532-535
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Pignataro L, Grillo Della Berta L, Capaccio P, Zaghis A. Myringoplasty in children: anatomical and functional results. J Laryngol Otol 2001; 115 (05) 369-373
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Denoyelle F, Roger G, Chauvin P, Garabedian EN. Myringoplasty in children: predictive factors of outcome. Laryngoscope 1999; 109 (01) 47-51
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lee P, Kelly G, Mills RP. Myringoplasty: does the size of the perforation matter?. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2002; 27 (05) 331-334
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kotecha B, Fowler S, Topham J. Myringoplasty: a prospective audit study. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1999; 24 (02) 126-129
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Onal K, Uguz MZ, Kazikdas KC, Gursoy ST, Gokce H. A multivariate analysis of otological, surgical and patient-related factors in determining success in myringoplasty. Clin Otolaryngol 2005; 30 (02) 115-120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kumar S, Acharya A, Hadjihannas E, Panagamuwa C, McDermott AL. Pediatric myringoplasty: definition of “success” and factors affecting outcome. Otol Neurotol 2010; 31 (09) 1417-1420
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Koch WM, Friedman EM, McGill TJI, Healy GB. Tympanoplasty in children. The Boston Children's Hospital experience. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1990; 116 (01) 35-40
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Vartiainen E, Nuutinen J. Success and pitfalls in myringoplasty: follow-up study of 404 cases. Am J Otol 1993; 14 (03) 301-305
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Avilés Jurado FJ, Merán Gil JL, Tobed Secall M. , et al. Myringoplasty: auditory follow-up and study of prognostic factors. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 2009; 60 (03) 169-175
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kessler A, Potsic WP, Marsh RR. Type 1 tympanoplasty in children. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1994; 120 (05) 487-490
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Black JH, Wormald PJ. Myringoplasty: effects on hearing and contributing factors. S Afr Med J 1995; 85 (01) 41-43
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Emir H, Ceylan K, Kizilkaya Z, Gocmen H, Uzunkulaoglu H, Samim E. Success is a matter of experience: type 1 tympanoplasty : influencing factors on type 1 tympanoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2007; 264 (06) 595-599
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Palva T, Ramsay H. Myringoplasty and tympanoplasty--results related to training and experience. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1995; 20 (04) 329-335
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Lau T, Tos M. Tympanoplasty in children. An analysis of late results. Am J Otol 1986; 7 (01) 55-59
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Ophir D, Porat M, Marshak G. Myringoplasty in the pediatric population. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1987; 113 (12) 1288-1290
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Albera R, Ferrero V, Lacilla M, Canale A. Tympanic reperforation in myringoplasty: evaluation of prognostic factors. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2006; 115 (12) 875-879
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar