Dataset Information

Comparison of Inlay Cartilage Butterfly and Underlay Temporal Fascia Tympanoplasty.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To systematically review the results of inlay cartilage butterfly tympanoplasty and standard underlay temporal fascia tympanoplasty for anatomic and functional end points.

Data sources

PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and Virtual Health Library (VHL/Lilacs) databases were searched from inception through April 2, 2021. No restrictions on language, publication year, or publication status were applied.

Review methods

The meta-analysis included data from articles that met inclusion criteria and were extracted by 2 authors independently. The PRISMA statement was followed. Risk of Bias 2.0 and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess risk of bias. The primary outcome was tympanic membrane closure rate. The secondary outcome was improvement of the air-bone gap.

Results

Ten studies were included, 9 cohort studies and 1 randomized clinical trial, with 577 patients. The graft take rate was 82.8% in the butterfly cartilage inlay tympanoplasty group and 85.2% in the temporal fascia underlay tympanoplasty group (relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.93-1.11; I ² = 42%, P = .08). The air-bone gap reduction ranged from 6.1 to 11.28 in the butterfly cartilage inlay group and from 5.2 to 12.66 in the temporal fascia underlay group, with a mean difference between groups of -2.08 (95% CI, -3.23 to -0.94; I ² = 58%, P = .04), favoring temporal fascia underlay.

Conclusion

The 2 tympanoplasty techniques analyzed here produced similar results in terms of successful reconstruction of the tympanic membrane and reduction in the air-bone gap. Neither age nor follow-up length of time influenced outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Neto JFL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9274429 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The three well recognized tympanoplasty approaches: permeatal, postaural, and endaural, each have advantages and disadvantages. The permeatal approach is suitable only for ears with adequate canal size. The postaural approach limits visualization of the posterior eardrum margin. The endaural approach limits the view of the eardrum's anterior margin. This study describes a modified endaural approach, developed to overcome these limitations. A retrospective case series review and collection of a prospective cohort of patient reported outcome data were undertaken to assess the technique.Standard incisions as used in an endaural approach are placed within the ear canal. The novel incision extends from the superior canal incision into the conchal cavum. This allows a flap of the thick, hairbearing skin from both the bony and cartilaginous portions of the canal to be raised, and everted, to provide an excellent view of the entire drum. Perichondrium can be harvested for grafting from the conchal cavum. The clinical charts of all patients operated on by the first author using this technique from 2010-2012 were retrospectively reviewed. The size and position of the perforation, size of the canal, whether primary or revision surgery, graft take rate, hearing results and the occurrence of chondritis/perichondritis were recorded. To investigate the morbidities and the acceptance by the patients of the incision/scar in the conchal cavum, all patients undergoing the procedure in the 8 months up to the end of August 2013 were prospectively recruited to complete a self-assessment Likert scale questionnaire recording postoperative pain, and satisfaction with the cosmesis of the operative site. The clinician recorded if there was any evidence of chondritis/perichondritis.A 100% graft take rate was achieved in the 75 adults treated by the first author from 2010 to 2012 regardless of the size and position of the perforation, configuration of the canal, primary or revision surgery. Preoperative Pure Tone Audiometric (PTA) Air Bone Gap (ABG) averaged over 3 frequencies (0.5, 1 and 2 K Hz) was 19.4dB (standard deviation?=?9.6, range 2 to 50). Postoperative PTA ABG average was 6.2 dB (standard deviation?=?8.3, range -7 to 37), demonstrating a statistically significant post-surgery mean improvement of 13.2 dB (paired T-test, p?<?0.001). Twenty-one patients who underwent the procedure in 2013, reported minimal postoperative analgesic use, and scored the acceptability of the incision scar highly (4.8 out of a maximum of 5). There was no case of chondritis/perichondritis in the 96 cases.Whilst it is the surgeon's decision to use a permeatal, postaural or endaural approach, the endaural approach with the conchal cavum modification is an excellent alternative to the traditionally described approaches.NCT02000843 at ClinicalTrials.gov.