Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T19:02:00.543Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparing audiometric parameters between crushed and intact cartilage tympanoplasty: a double-blinded, randomised, controlled trial study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2020

A Tajdini ,
N Hatami ,
B Rahmaty ,
A Kouhi ,
S Dabiri  and
K Aghazadeh
A Tajdini
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Amir Alam Hospital, Tehran, Iran
N Hatami
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Amir Alam Hospital, Tehran, Iran
B Rahmaty
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Amir Alam Hospital, Tehran, Iran
A Kouhi*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Amir Alam Hospital, Tehran, Iran
S Dabiri
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Amir Alam Hospital, Tehran, Iran
K Aghazadeh
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Amir Alam Hospital, Tehran, Iran
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Ali Kouhi, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Amir Alam Hospital, North Saadi Ave, Tehran, Iran, PO Box: 11457–65111 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: +98 (21) 6676 0245
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

To investigate hearing and the take rate of crushed cartilage grafts in tympanoplasty.

Methods

In this double-blinded, randomised, controlled trial, 46 patients with tympanic membrane perforation were enrolled. A conchal cartilage graft was used for reconstruction in both intervention and control groups. In the intervention group, crushed cartilage was used. The success rate and hearing results were ascertained every four months over a one-year follow-up period.

Results

A total of 36 patients – 20 in the intervention group and 16 in the control group – completed one year of follow up. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in mean air–bone gap, bone conduction threshold, speech discrimination score or speech reception threshold.

Conclusion

The reduction in living cells after crushed cartilage tympanoplasty may decrease the rigidity and the volume of the graft, but may not necessarily improve the hearing results.

Keywords

CartilageTympanoplastyTympanic Membrane
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 134 , Issue 12 , December 2020 , pp. 1060 - 1064
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Footnotes

Dr A Kouhi takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Fukuchi, I, Cerchiari, DP, Garcia, E, Rezende, CE, Rapoport, PB. Tympanoplasty: surgical results and a comparison of the factors that may interfere in their success. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2006;72:267–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storrs, LA. Myringoplasty with the use of fascia grafts. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1961;74:45–9Google Scholar
Mohamad, SH, Khan, I, Hussain, SS. Is cartilage tympanoplasty more effective than fascia tympanoplasty? A systematic review. Otol Neurotol 2012;33:699–705CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, JC, Lee, SR, Nam, JK, Lee, TH, Kwon, JK. Comparison of different grafting techniques in type I tympanoplasty in cases of significant middle ear granulation. Otol Neurotol 2012;33:586–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jansen, C. Cartilage--tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope 1963;73:1288–301CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heermann, J Jr, Heermann, H, Kopstein, E. Fascia and cartilage palisade tympanoplasty. Nine years' experience. Arch Otolaryngol 1970;91:228–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neumann, A, Kevenhoerster, K, Gostian, AO. Long-term results of palisade cartilage tympanoplasty. Otol Neurotol 2010;31:936–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kouhi, A, Khorsandi Ashthiani, MT, Jalali, MM. Results of type I tympanoplasty using fascia with or without cartilage reinforcement: 10 years' experience. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol 2018;30:103–6Google ScholarPubMed
Vashishth, A, Mathur, NN, Verma, D. Cartilage palisades in type 3 tympanoplasty: functional and hearing results. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014;66:309–13CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baklaci, D, Guler, I, Kuzucu, I, Kum, RO, Ozcan, M. Type 1 tympanoplasty in pediatric patients: a review of 102 cases. BMC Pediatr 2018;18:345CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedman, AB, Gluth, MB, Moore, PC, Dornhoffer, JL. Outcomes of cartilage tympanoplasty in the pediatric population. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;148:297–301CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abdelhameed, W, Rezk, I, Awad, A. Impact of cartilage graft size on success of tympanoplasty. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2017;83:507–11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;127:2139–48CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerber, MJ, Mason, JC, Lambert, PR. Hearing results after primary cartilage tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope 2000;110:1994–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schöttke, H, Hartwein, J, Pan, HW. Influence of different graft materials in type 1 tympanoplasty on the sound pressure level in the ear canal [in German]. Otorhinolaryngol Nova 1992;2:318–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buyuklu, F, Hizal, E, Yilmaz, Z, Sahin, FI, Cakmak, O. Viability of crushed human auricular and costal cartilage chondrocytes in cell culture. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2011;39:221–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ballenger, JJ, Snow, JB. Ballenger's Otorhinolaryngology: Head and Neck Surgery. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 2003;261–93Google Scholar
Andersen, J, Caye-Thomasen, P, Tos, M. Cartilage palisade tympanoplasty in sinus and tensa retraction cholesteatoma. Otol Neurotol 2002;23:825–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zahnert, T, Hüttenbrink, KB, Mürbe, D, Bornitz, M. Experimental investigations of the use of cartilage in tympanic membrane reconstruction. Am J Otol 2000;21:322–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aslıer, M, Özay, H, Gürkan, S, Kırkım, G, Güneri, EA. The effect of tympanic membrane perforation site, size and middle ear volume on hearing loss. Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2019;57:86–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mürbe, D, Zahnert, T, Bornitz, M, Huttenbrink, KB. Acoustic properties of different cartilage reconstruction techniques of the tympanic membrane. Laryngoscope 2002;112:1769–76CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mokbel, KM, Thabet, el-SM. Repair of subtotal tympanic membrane perforation by ultrathin cartilage shield: evaluation of take rate and hearing result. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2013;270:33–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cakmak, O, Buyuklu, F. Crushed cartilage grafts for concealing irregularities in rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2007;9:352–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kayabasoglu, G, Ozbek, E, Yanar, S, Sahin, F, Keles, ON, Yilmaz, MS et al. The comparison of the viability of crushed, morselized and diced cartilage grafts: a confocal microscopic study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015;272:1135–42CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed