Comparison of Temporalis Fascia and Full-Thickness Cartilage Palisades in Type-I Underlay Tympanoplasty for Large/Subtotal Perforations

Document Type : Original

Authors

1 Department of Otorhinolaryngology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India

2 Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Safdarjung Hospital & Vardhmann Mahavir Medical College, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, India.

Abstract

Introduction:
To demonstrate surgical techniques and to compare the anatomical and functional outcomes between temporalis fascia and cartilage palisade grafting in type-I underlay tympanoplasty in patients with large/subtotal perforation.
Materials and Methods:
Temporalis fascia and cartilage palisade grafting were conducted in Group A and Group B, respectively, each containing 30 patients with large/subtotal perforations. Pure tone audiogram (PTA) and speech reception thresholds (SRT) were performed preoperatively and at each postoperative visit; i.e. at the end of Month 1,3,6, and 24. A 10-dB closure of air bone gap (ABG) and a 10-dB improvement in SRT were considered significant.
 Results:
The graft uptake rates were 80% and 96.7% in Group A and Group B, respectively, at the end of 24 months. In total, 90% of Group A and 88% in Group B had significant improvement in hearing (ABG ≥10 dB). The mean improvement in SRT in the fascia and cartilage groups was 10 dB and 9 dB, respectively. Seventy-five percent of patients in Group A and 60% of patients in Group B had a significant gain in SRT.
 Conclusion:
Although both temporalis fascia and cartilage palisades can effectively be used for tympanic membrane (TM) grafting in difficult perforations, the latter is considered to be the better autograft, not only because of superior graft uptake but also because it results in a comparable hearing outcome.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

1. Iacovou E,Vlastarakos PV,Panagiotakopoulou A,Chrysostomou M,Kandiloros D,Adamopoulos G. Effect oftypeItympanoplastyon the resonant frequency of the middle ear:comparisonbetween chondrotympanoplasty and fasciagrafting. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.2012; 41(1):14–9.
2. Kazikdas KC, Onal K, Boyraz I, Karabulut E. Palisade cartilage tympanoplasty for management of subtotal perforations: a comparison with the temporalisfascia technique. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2007; 264(9):985–9.
3. Sschuknecht H, Shi S. Surgical pathology of middle ear implants. Laryngoscope 1985; 95:249–58.
4. Kalcioglu MT, Tan M, Croo A. Comparison between cartilage and fascia grafts in type 1 tympanoplasty. B-ENT. 2013; 9(3):235–9.
5. Gerber MJ, Mason JC, Lambert PR. Hearing Results After Primary Cartilage Tympanopalsty. Laryngoscope. 2000; 110:1994–9.
6. Dornhoffer JL. Hearing results with cartilage tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope. 1997; 107:1094–9.
7. Vashishth A, Mathur NN, Choudhary SR, Bhardwaj A. Clinical advantages of cartilage palisades over temporalis fascia in type I tympanoplasty. Auris Nasus Larynx.2014; 41(5): 422–7.
8. Güneri EA, Ikiz AO, Erdağ TK, Sütay S. Cartilage tympanoplasty: indications, techniques, and results. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.2009; 38(3):362–8.
9. Ozbek C, Ciftçi O, Tuna EE, Yazkan O, Ozdem C. A comparison of cartilage palisades and fascia in type 1 tympanoplasty in children: anatomic and functional results. Otol Neurotol.2008; 29(5):679–83.
10. Wielgosz R, Mroczkowski E. Assessment of the hearing results in tympanoplasties with the use of palisade-technique. Otolaryngol Pol.2006; 60(6): 901–5.
Iranian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology
Volume 29, Issue 2
March and April 2017
Pages 63-68

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics