Audiological evaluation in between patients with type 1 tympanoplasty alone and type 1 tympanoplasty with cortical mastoidectomy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/issn.2454-5929.ijohns20175495Keywords:
Tympanoplasty, Fascia, Cartilage, Audiometry, Pure-toneAbstract
Background: Evaluation of success of tympanoplasty depends on various host and surgical factors has been subject of interest for many years and still continues to be challenge.
Methods: Present study was undertaken to observe results of type I tympanoplasty using tragal cartilage and perichondrium with temporalis fascia grafts using endomeatal and postauricular approach.
Results: Study group comprises of 30 patients in Group A and B operated by tympanoplasty type I by endomeatal and postauricular techniques. Success was 96.3% in Group A and 94.7% in Group B for closure of membrane perforation. During postoperative period average time taken for wound healing was 23 days in Group A and 35 days in Group B. Preoperative and postoperative assessment of hearing performed with pure tone audiometry revealed an average hearing loss of 36.50 dB in Group A before surgery and postoperative assessment at end of 1 year revealed hearing improvement of 14.23 dB. In Group B preoperative assessment revealed hearing loss of 38.23 dB lowered to 15.12 dB after surgery. When hearing improvement in both groups were compared preoperatively and postoperatively, in Group A there was improvement of 22.27 dB while in Group B was 23.11 dB. The hearing improvements in both the groups appear to be similar when the results were compared. In present study overall success rate was 89.7% which is comparable to outcome of surgery performed with post auricular approach with temporalis fascia graft which is 91.3%. When postoperative complications were studied it was observed that Group A had fewer numbers of complications as over Group B which was documented in Table 2.
Conclusions: Success of tympanoplasty depends on several host and surgical factors. Tragal perichondrium appears as proven alternate for closure of perforation of tympanic membrane. Cosmetically endomeatal approach appears promising over post auricular approach.
References
Rizer FM. Overlay versus underlay Tympanoplasty. Part I: Historical Review of the Literature. Laryngoscope. 1997;107:1-23.
Ortegren. Myringoplasty. Acta Otolaryngology. 1964;193:1-41.
Siedentop KH, Lee RH, Osenar SB. Predictability of tympanoplasty results. Arch Otolaryngol. 1972;94:146-50.
Jackler RK, Schindler RA. Role of the mastoid in tympanic membrane reinstruction. Laryngoscope. 1984;94:495-500.
Adkins WY, White B, Charleston SC. Type I tympanoplasty: influencing factors. Laryngoscope. 1984;94:916-8.
Holmquist J, Bergstrom B. The mastiod air cell system in ear surgery. Arch Otolaryngol. 1978;104:127-9.
Booth JB. Myringoplasty – The lessons of failure. J Laryngol Otol. 1974;88:1223-36.
Packer P, Mackendrick A, Solar M. What’s best in Myringoplasty: Underlay or overlay, dura or fascia? J Laryngol Otol. 1982;96:25-41.
Krishnan A, Reddy EK, Chandrakiran C, Nalinesha KM, Jagannath PM. Tympanoplasty with and without cortical mastoidectomy-A comparative study. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002;54(3):195-8.
