Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T17:57:35.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tympanoplasty: does dry or wet temporalis fascia graft matter?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2016

G B Singh ,
D Kumar ,
K Aggarwal ,
S Garg ,
R Arora  and
S Kumar
G B Singh*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Lady Hardinge Medical College and Associated Hospitals, New Delhi, India
D Kumar
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Employee's State Insurance Hospital, Rohini, New Delhi, India
K Aggarwal
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology, Lady Hardinge Medical College and Associated Hospitals, New Delhi, India
S Garg
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Baba Saheb Ambedkar Medical College and Hospital, Rohini, New Delhi, India
R Arora
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Lady Hardinge Medical College and Associated Hospitals, New Delhi, India
S Kumar
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Lady Hardinge Medical College and Associated Hospitals, New Delhi, India
*
Address for correspondence: Prof Gautam Bir Singh, House no. 1433, Sector 15, Faridabad 121007 (National Capital Region), Haryana, India E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

To evaluate the success rate of dry and wet temporalis fascia grafts in type I underlay tympanoplasty.

Methods:

A prospective, randomised study was conducted. One hundred adult patients (males and females) with chronic suppurative otitis media (mucosal type) were divided into 2 groups of 50 each: one group underwent dry graft tympanoplasty and the other underwent wet graft tympanoplasty. Fibroblast count was calculated in dry and wet grafts.

Results:

The dry graft and wet graft groups had overall surgical success rates of 82 and 90 per cent, respectively; this finding was not statistically significant. A statistically significant high fibroblast count was observed in wet grafts, but it did not correlate with surgical success.

Conclusion:

A dry or wet temporalis fascia graft does not influence the outcome of tympanoplasty type I.

Keywords

TympanoplastyTemporalis FasciaFibroblast
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 130 , Issue 8 , August 2016 , pp. 700 - 705
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2016 

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 Hermann, H. Tympanic membrane plastic with temporalis fascia [in German]. Hals Nas Ohrenh 1960;9:136–9Google Scholar
2 Rizer, FM. Overlay versus underlay tympanoplasty. Part I: Historical review of the literature. Laryngoscope 1997;107:1–25 Google Scholar
3 Wehrs, RF. Grafting techniques. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1999;32:443–55CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4 Abul-Hassan, HS, von Drasek, Ascher G, Acland, RD. Surgical anatomy and blood supply of the fascial layers of the temporal region. Plast Reconstr Surg 1986;77:17–28 Google Scholar
5 Dabholkar, JP, Vora, K, Sikdar, A. Comparative study of underlay tympanoplasty with temporalis fascia and tragal perichondrium. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;59:116–19Google Scholar
6 Shea, JJ Jr. Vein graft closure of eardrum perforations. J Laryngol Otol 1960;74:358–62CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7 Austin, DF, Shea, JJ Jr. A new system of tympanoplasty using vein graft. Laryngoscope 1961;71:596–611 Google Scholar
8 Glasscock, ME 3rd. Tympanic membrane grafting with fascia: overlay vs. undersurface technique. Laryngoscope 1973;83:754–70Google Scholar
9 Jackson, CG, Kaylie, DM, Glasscock, ME 3rd. Tympanoplasty-undersurface graft technique. In: Brackmann, DE, Shelton, C, Arriaga, MA, eds. Otologic Surgery. Philadelphia: Saunders, 2010;149 Google Scholar
10 Athanasiadis-Sismanis, A. Tympanoplasty: tympanic membrane repair. In: Gulya, AJ, Minor, LB, Poe, DS, eds. Glasscock-Shambaugh's Surgery of the Ear. Shelton, CT: PMPH, 2010;484Google Scholar
11 Emmett, JR. Age as a factor in the success of tympanoplasty: a comparison of outcomes in the young and old. Am J Otol 1996;28:285–6Google Scholar
12 Fukuchi, I, Cerchiari, DP, Gracia, E, Rezende, CE, Rapoport, PB. Tympanoplasty: surgical results and a comparison of the factors that may interfere in their success. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2006;72:267–71Google Scholar
13 England, RJ, Strachan, DR, Buckley, JG. Temporalis fascia grafts shrink. J Laryngol Otol 1997;111:707–8Google Scholar
14 Alkan, S, Baylancicek, S, Sozen, E, Basak, T, Dadas, B. Effect of use of dry (rigid) and wet (soft) temporal fascia graft on tympanoplasty. J Otolaryngol 2009;38:126–32Google Scholar
15 Loock, JW, Naude, N. A randomised controlled trial comparing fresh, dried, and dried-then-rehydrated temporalis fascia in myringoplasty. Clin Otolaryngol 2008;33:97–101 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16 Fisch, U, May, J. Tympanoplasty. In: Fisch, U, May, J, Linder, T, eds. Tympanoplasty, Mastoidectomy and Stapes Surgery. Stuttgart: Thieme, 1994;29 Google Scholar
17 Shenoi, PM. Autogenous temporalis fascia grafts: detailed light and electron microscopical observations on the effects of preparations. J Laryngol Otol 1982;96:801–10Google Scholar
18 Walby, AP, Kerr, AG, Nevin, NC, Woods, G. Tissue culture of surgically prepared temporalis fascia. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1982;7:313–17Google Scholar
19 Kumar, V, Abbas, AK, Fausto, N, Aster, JC. Tissue renewal, regeneration and repair. In: Kumar, V, Abbas, AK, Fausto, N, eds. Robbins and Cotran Pathologic Basis of Disease. Philadelphia: Saunders, 2010;102–3Google Scholar
20 Singh, GB, Sidhu, TS, Sharma, A, Singh, N. Tympanoplasty type 1 in children--an evaluative study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2005;69:1071–6Google Scholar
21 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation. Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium guidelines for the evaluation of results of treatment of conductive hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995;113:186–7Google Scholar
22 Umapathy, N, Dekker, PJ. Myringoplasty: is it worth performing in children. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;129:1053–5Google Scholar
23 Youngs, R. Chronic suppurative otitis media - mucosal disease. In: Ludman, H, Wright, W, eds. Diseases of the Ear, 6th edn. London: Hodder Arnold, 1997;375 Google Scholar
24 Aslan, S, Uslu, S, Köybaşioğlu, A, Oz, O, Ileri, F, Ozbilen, S. Use of dehydrated temporal fascia in chronic otitis media surgery and tympanoplasty [in Turkish]. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg 2008;18:31–4Google Scholar
25 Bhardwaj, V, Verma, R, Puri, S. Novel method of drying temporalis fascia graft for tympanomastoid surgery. Indian J Otol 2013;19:66–7Google Scholar
26 Wormald, PJ, Alun-Jones, T. Anatomy of temporalis fascia. J Laryngol Otol 1991;105:522–4Google Scholar
27 Indorewala, S. Dimensional stability of the free fascia grafts: an animal experiment. Laryngoscope 2002;112:727–30Google Scholar
28 Chow, LC, Wei, WI. Permeatal temporalis fascia graft harvesting for minimally invasive myringoplasty. Laryngoscope 2004;114:386–8Google Scholar
29 Applebaum, EL, Deutsch, EC. An endoscopic method of tympanic membrane flourescein angiography. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1986;95:439–43Google Scholar
30 Patterson, ME, Lockwood, RW, Sheehy, JL. Temporalis fascia in tympanic membrane grafting. Arch Otolaryngol 1967;85:287–91CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31 Smyth, GD, Kerr, AG, Nevin, NC. Tympanic membrane grafting: animal and tissue culture experiments. J Laryngol Otol 1971;85:1167–71Google Scholar
32 Salen, B, Wersall, J. Histological study of experimental tympanic closure in cats. Acta Otolaryngol 1968;suppl 244:15–32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33 Stenfors, LE, Carlsoo, B, Winblad, B. Repair of experimental tympanic membrane perforations. Acta Otolaryngol 1980;90:332–41Google Scholar
34 Johnson, A, Hawke, M. Cell shape in the migratory epidermis of the external auditory canal. J Otolaryngol 1985;14:2273–81Google Scholar
35 Johnson, AP, Smallman, LA, Kent, SE. The mechanism of healing of tympanic membrane perforations: a two-dimensional histological study in guinea pigs. Acta Otolaryngol 1990;109:406–15Google Scholar