Palisade Cartilage Tympanoplasty, an Alternative Surgical Approach for CSOM

Document Type : Original

Authors

Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.

Abstract

Introduction:
The hearing outcome and graft take in patients of CSOM with sclerotic mastoids were studied using the novel technique of palisade cartilage tympanoplasty. Besides, it was compared with tympanoplasty type-1 above and over the cortical mastoidectomy in both groups.
 Materials and Methods:
Out of 313 patients of CSOM, 125 had sclerotic mastoid and were included in the study. Palisade cartilage group patients were subjected to palisade cartilage tympanoplasty type-1. While as in the Temporalis fascia group patients, type-1 tympanoplasty was done using temporalis fascia as graft material. These procedures were performed in addition to cortical mastoidectomy done in all cases.
 Results:
Statistically significant (P<0.001) mean postoperative hearing gain was achieved (> 20 dB) in both the groups with a reduction of AB gap to 13.3 & 11.79 dB, respectively. However, the post-surgery hearing outcomes achieved were similar in both groups (P=0.09). The overall graft take rate of 86% was seen in the Palisade cartilage group. The remaining 14% had graft take failure. The primary graft failure rate was 10% (5/50), and the secondary failure rate within six months of follow-up was 4% (2/50). The Temporalis fascia group graft take rate was higher (92%) than the Palisade cartilage group, with only 4 % (3/75) of cases having a primary graft failure rate. However, these findings (92% vs. 86%) were not statistically significant (P=0.2830).
 Conclusions:
As the hearing outcomes and graft take rates were comparable in the two groups, the present study highlighted the use of palisade cartilage tympanoplasty in patients of CSOM with sclerotic mastoids as an alternative method to tympanoplasty.
 

Keywords

References

  1. Smyth GD. Tympanic reconstruction. Fifteen year report on tympanoplasty. Part II. J Laryngol Otol. 1976; 90(8):713–741.
  2. Committee on Conservation of Hearing. American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology: Standard classification for surgery of chronic ear disease. Arch Otol 1965; 81: 204.
  3. Indorewala S. Dimensional stability of the free fascia grafts: An animal experiment. Laryngoscope 2002; 112(4): 727-30.
  4. Indorewala S, Pagare R, Aboojiwala S, Barpande S. Dimensional stability of the free fascia grafts: A human study. Laryngoscope 2004; 114(3): 543-7.
  5. Jackler RK, Schindler RA. Role of the mastoid in tympanic membrane reconstruction. Laryngoscope. 1984; 94: 495-500.
  6. Dornhoffer JL. Cartilage tympanoplasty. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2006; 39:1161–76.
  7. Tos, Mirko. Cartilage tympanoplasty. 1997. New York: Thieme; 2009. 52-57.
  8. Tos M. Cartilage tympanoplasty methods: proposal of a classification. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008; 139:747–58.
  9. Man SC, Nunez DA. Tympanoplasty-conchal cavum approach. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016; 45:1-5.
  10. Gerber MJ, Mason JC, Lambert PR Hearing results after primary cartilage tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope. 2000 ; 110:1994–99.
  11. Neumann A, Kevenhouster K, Gostian AO Long term results of palisade cartilage tympanoplasty. Otoneurotol.2010;31:936–939.
  12. Beutner D, Huttenbrink KB, Stumpf R, Beleites T, Zahnert T, Luers JC,et al. Cartilage plate tympanoplasty. Otol Neurotol. 2010;31(1):105-10.
  13. Andersen J, Cayé-Thomasen P, Tos M. A comparison of fascia and cartilage palisades in tympanoplasty after surgery for sinus and tensa retraction cholesteatoma in children. Otol Neurotol 2004; 25: 856-63.
  14. Dornhoffer J. Cartilage tympanoplasty: indications, techniques, and outcomes in a 1,000-patient series. Laryngoscope. 2003; 113:1844–56.
  15. Cabra J, Monux A. Efficacy of cartilage palisade tympanoplasty: Randomized controlled trial. Otol Neurotol. 2010; 31:589–95.
  16. Neumann A, Schultz-Coulon HJ, Jahnke K. Type III tympanoplasty applying the palisade cartilage technique: a study of 61 cases. Otol Neurotol. 2003; 24:33–7.
  17. Velepic M, Bonifacic M, Manestar D. Cartilage palisade tympanoplasty and diving. Otol Neurotol. 2001; 22:430–2.
  18. Loeb L. Autotransplantation and homotrans- plantation of cartilage in the guinea pig. Am J Pathol 1962; 2: 111-22.
  19. Arora N, Passey JC, Agarwal AK, Bansal R. Type 1 Tympanoplasty by Cartilage Palisade and Temporalis Fascia Technique: A Comparison. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017; 69(3):380-384.
  20. Sohil Vadiya, Vibhuti Parikh, Saumya Shah, Parita Pandya, et al. "Comparison of Modified Cartilage Shield Tympanoplasty with Tympanoplasty Using Temporalis Fascia Only: Retrospective Analysis of 142 Cases", Scientifica, 2016; 2016:1-4 .
  21. Jalali MM, Motasaddi M, Kouhi A, Dabiri S, Soleimani R. Comparison of cartilage with temporalis fascia tympanoplasty: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Laryngoscope. 2017; 127(9): 2139-2148.
  22. Mahmood Shishegar1, Abolhasan Faramarzi1, ayehtaraghi. A Short-term Comparison Between Result of Palisade Cartilage Tympanoplasty and Temporalis Fascia Technique. Iranianjournal of Otorhinolaryngology .2012; 24: 105-11.

 

Iranian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology
Volume 34, Issue 4
July and August 2022
Pages 179-183

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics