Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T09:12:04.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Myringoplasty: impact of perforation size on closure and audiological improvement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2009

J D Wasson ,
C E Papadimitriou  and
H Pau
J D Wasson*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Luton and Dunstable Hospital, UK
C E Papadimitriou
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Leicester Royal Infirmary, UK
H Pau
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Leicester Royal Infirmary, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr Joseph Wasson, 15 West Way, Carshalton Beeches SM5 4EJ, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

To investigate the impact of perforation size and other variables on the success of myringoplasty, and also to determine audiological gain following successful closure of tympanic membrane perforations of various sizes.

Study design:

Retrospective analysis of 130 case notes.

Main outcome measures:

(1) Successful closure of tympanic membrane following myringoplasty, in relation to recorded variables (i.e. perforation size, grade of surgeon, surgical technique, graft material, previous myringoplasty and smoking history). (2) Mean, four-frequency, air conduction audiometric gain following successful myringoplasty for various, pre-operatively categorised tympanic membrane perforation sizes.

Results and Conclusion:

The collective myringoplasty success rate was 80.8 per cent (105/130); for successful patients, the mean air conduction audiometric gain was −6.8 dB (t = 5.29, p < 0.0001). Neither perforation size nor any other assessed variable was a statistically significant determinant factor for successful myringoplasty. Air conduction audiometric gains following successful myringoplasty were directly correlated with pre-operative perforation size (−4.0 dB for 0–20 per cent perforations, −5.0 dB for 21–40 per cent, −9.1 dB for 41–60 per cent, −10.8 dB for 61–80 per cent and −13.3 dB for 81–100 per cent).

Keywords

MyringoplastyTympanic Membrane PerforationHearingOtologic Surgical Procedures
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 123 , Issue 9 , September 2009 , pp. 973 - 977
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Kotecha, B, Fowler, S, Topham, J. Myringoplasty: a prospective audit study. Clin Otolaryngol 1999;24:126–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2 Ryan, RM, Brown, PM, Cameron, JM, Fowler, SM, Grant, HR, Topham, JH. Royal College of Surgeons comparative audit 1990. Clin Otolaryngol 1993;18:541–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3 Bhat, NA, De, R. Retrospective analysis of surgical outcome, symptom changes, and hearing improvement following myringoplasty. J Otolaryngol 2000;29:229–32Google ScholarPubMed
4 Black, JH, Wormald, PJ. Myringoplasty – effects on hearing and contributing factors. S Afr Med J 1995;85:41–3Google ScholarPubMed
5 Black, JH, Hickey, SA, Wormald, PJ. An analysis of the results of myringoplasty in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 1995;31:95–100CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6 Umapathy, N, Dekker, PJ. Myringoplasty: is it worth performing in children? Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;129:1053–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7 Pignataro, L, Berta, LGD, Capaccio, P, Zaghis, A. Myringoplasty in children: anatomical and functional results. J Laryngol Otol 2001;115:369–73CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8 Yung, MW. Myringoplasty for subtotal perforation. Clin Otolaryngol 1995;20:241–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9 Gersdoff, M, Gardin, P, Decat, M, Juantegui, M. Myringoplasty: long-term results in adults and children. Am J Otol 1995;16:532–5Google Scholar
10 Lee, P, Kelly, G, Mills, RP. Myringoplasty: does the size of the perforation matter? Clin Otolaryngol 2002;27:331–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11 Palva, T, Ramsay, H. Myringoplasty and tympanoplasty – results related to training and experience. Clin Otolaryngol 1995;20:329–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12 Vartiainen, E, Nuutinen, J. Success and pitfalls in myringoplasty: Follow-up study of 404 cases. Am J Otol 1993;14:301–5Google ScholarPubMed
13 Gibb, A, Chang, S. Myringoplasty (a review of 365 operations). J Laryngol Otol 1982;96:915–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14 Becvarovski, Z, Kartush, JM. Smoking and tympanoplasty: implications for prognosis and the middle ear risk index (MERI). Laryngoscope 2001;111:1806–11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed