Myringoplasty [Risk factors and the effect of post operative follow up on the outcome of success rate in Erbil / Kurdistan of Iraq]

Said M. Said Al-Jaaf; Arsalan A. Mustafa Shem; Lana abdulrazak Dabbagh

doi:10.15218/zjms.2010.029

Authors

Said M. Said Al-Jaaf Lecturer in medical college / Hawler medical university, Consultant in Rizgary Teaching Hospital / Hawler/ Iraq
Arsalan A. Mustafa Shem *Lecturer in medical college / Hawler medical university, Consultant in Rizgary Teaching Hospital / Hawler/ Iraq
Lana abdulrazak Dabbagh *Lecturer in medical college / Hawler medical university, Consultant in Rizgary Teaching Hospital / Hawler/ Iraq

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15218/zjms.2010.029

Keywords:

myringoplasty, tympanoplasty, otological surgical procedures

Abstract

Background and objective: The presence of a perforated tympanic membrane with intermittent discharge and hearing loss of conductive type are the indication for myringoplasty. The purpose of this study was to determine risk factors in candidates for myringoplasty and to evaluate the post operative myringoplasty success rate results in our local region in Erbil/Kurdistan, Iraq. The second objective is to appraise and assess the effect of close observation and post operative treatment and follow up on this result, to increase the success rate.

Methods: A prospective study, randomly taken 68 patients with unilateral perforated tympanic membrane, who are candidates for myringoplasty; patients of different age groups ranging [16 -55] years old, of different gender 30 males and 38 females., having dry unilateral perforated tympanic membrane of more than 3 months, underwent myringoplasty [underlay] between may 2006 and April 2009 at Rizgary teaching Hospital. Measurement of the post operative results and outcome were depend on the take rate and the hearing level at the last follow up visit in different time postoperatively and with dry clean non infected operated ear.

Results: Small, dry posterior perforation, with postauricular approach in well pneumatized mastoid and in well educated non-smoker patient with close observation post-operatively using BIPP has better success rate. The success rate increased from 72% in the 1^st postoperative visit to 88% in the last postoperative visit.

Conclusion:-To increase the success rate, its necessary to determine the factors that affect the success rate preoperatively, also close observation with meticulous toilet of the operated ear post-operatively using BIPP is necessary to increase the success rate.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Browning G, Merchant S, chronic otits Scoot's - Brown's Otolaryngology. 7th ed. London: Hodder Arnold. 2008;3:.3421-23.

Eavey R. Inlay tympanoplasty: cartilage butterfly technique, Laryngoscope.1998; 108(5) : 657–61.

Lubianca-Neto F: Inlay butterfly cartilage tympanoplasty (Eavey technique) modified for adults. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg . 2000;123(4): 492–94.

Mauri M, Lubianca-Neto F, Fuchs C: Evaluation of inlay butterfly cartilage tympanoplasty: a randomized clinical trial. Laryngoscope. 2001;111(8): 1479–85.

Couloigner V, Baculard F , El Bakkouri W: Inlay butterfly cartilage tympanoplasty in children. Otol Neurotol. 2005;26 (2): 247–51.

Effat G, Kamal G: Results of inlay cartilage myringoplasty in terms of closure of central tympanic membrane perforations. J Laryngol Otol. 2005:119(8): 611–13.

Anand S, Kathuria G, Kumar S: Butterfly inlay tympanoplasty: a study in Indian scenario. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg . 2002;54:11–13.

Ghanem A, Monroy A, Alizadeh S: Butterfly cartilage graft inlay tympanoplasty for large perforations. Laryngoscope. 2006: 1813–16.

Sakagami M, Yuasa R, Yuasa Y: Simple underlay myringoplasty. J Laryngol Otol. 2006;14:1–5.

Albu S, Babighian G, Trabalzini F: Prognostic factors in tympanoplasty. Am J Otol. 1998;19:136–40.

Inwood L, Wallace HC, Clarke E: Endaural or postaural incision for myringoplasty: does it make a difference to the patient?. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci .2003;28:396–98.

Kartush M: Ossicular chain reconstruction: capitulum to malleus. Otolaryngol Clin North Am.1994;27: 689–715.

Becvarovski Z. Kartush M: Smoking and tympanoplasty: implications for prognosis and the Middle Ear Risk Index (MERI). Laryngoscope. 2001;111:1806–11.

Varitianen E: The results of chronic ear surgery in a training programme. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 1998;23: 177-80.

Halik JJ, Smyth GD: Long-term results of tympanic membrane repair. Otolaryngol – head and neck surgery. 1988; 98: 162-9.

Lee P,Kelly G,Mills RP: Myringoplasty: does the size of the perforation matter?. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci . 2002; 27: 331-4.

Jhon DG, Carlin WV, Lesser TH, Carrick DG, Fielder C: Tympanoplasty surgery and prophylactic antibiotics: surgical results. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 1988; 13: 205-7.

Kotecha B, Fowler S, Topham J: Myringoplasty: a prospective audit study. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 1999; 24: 126-9.

Berman S, Otitis media in developing countries.Pediatrics 1995; 96: 126-31.

BLck JH, Wormald PJ: Myringoplasty effects on hearing and contributing factors. South African Medical Journal. 1995; 85: 41-3.

Mishiro Y, Sakagami M, Takahashi Y, Kitahara T, Kajikawa H, Kubo T: Tympanoplasty with and without mastoidectomy for non-cholesteatomatous COM. Europ Achieves of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2001; 258: 13-5.

Yung M, Neumann S, Vowler L: A longitudinal study on pediatric myringoplasty. Otol Neurotol. 2007;28:353–55.

Umapathy N, Dekker J: Myringoplasty: is it worth performing in children?, Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2003;129: 1053–55.

Albera R, Ferrero V, Lacilla M: Tympanic reperforation in myringoplasty: evaluation of prognostic factors. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2006;115:875–79.

Meranda D, Koike K, Shafiei M: Tympanometric volume: a predictor of success of tympanoplasty in children. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;136:189–92.

Singh B, Sidhu S, Sharma A: Tympanoplasty type 1 in children: an evaluative study.Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2005;69:1071–76.

Bhat A, De R: Retrospective analysis of surgical, symptom changes and hearing improvement following myringoplasty. J Otolaryngol.2000;29:229–32.

Lee P, Kelly G, Mills P: Myringoplasty: does the size of the perforation matter?. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 2002;27:331–34.

Onal K, Uguz Z, Kazikda C et al :A multivariate analysis of otological, surgical and patient related factors in determining success in myringoplasty. Clin Otolaryngol.2005;30:115–20.

Seidman D: Anterior transcanal tympanoplasty: a novel technique to repair anterior perforations.Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2008; 138 (2):242–45.

Denoyelle F, Roger G, Chauvin P et al: Myringoplasty in children: predictive factors of outcome. Laryngoscope. 1999;109;47–51.

Gaslin M, O’Reilly C, Morlet T, McCormick M: Pediatric cartilage interleave tympanoplasty. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg.2007;137(2):284–88.

Avilés Jurado FJ, Merán Gil JL, Tobed Secall M, Doménech Vadillo E, Masgoret Palau E, Martínez Novoa MD, Figuerola Massana E: Myringoplasty: auditory follow-up and study of prognostic factors. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2009;60(3):169-75.

Uyar Y, Keles B, Koc S et al: Tympanoplasty in pediatric patients. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2006;70:1805–9.

Palva T, Virtanen, H: Pitfalls in myringoplasty. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) 1993:441-46.

Sakagami M, Maeda A, Node M, Sone M, Mishiro Y: Long-term observation on hearing change in patients with chronic otitis media. Auris Nasus Larynx.2000; 27:117-20.

Gibb AG, Chang SK: Myringoplasty (a review of 365 operations). J Laryngol Otol.1982;96:915-30.

Karkanevatos A, Phil D, De S, Srinivasan VR, Roland NJ, Lesser TH: Day-case myringoplasty: five years' experience. J Laryngol Otol.2003;117:763-65.

Onal K, Uguz MZ, Kazikdas KC, Gursoy ST, Gokce H: A multivariate analysis of otological, surgical and patient-related factors in determining success in myringoplasty. Clin Otolaryngol. 2005:115-20.

Angela H, Johannes B: Pediatric myringoplasty Postaural versus transmeatal approach.J. Pediatric Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2009;73(11):1580-83.

Becvarovski Z, Kartush JM: Smoking and tympanoplasty: implications for prognosis and the Middle Ear Risk Index (MERI). Laryngoscope. 2001 Oct;111(10):1806-11.

Kaylie DM, Bennett ML, Davis B, Jackson CG: Effects of smoking on otologic surgery outcomes. Laryngoscope. 2009 Jul;119(7):1384-90.

Gulya AJ: Environmental tobacco smoke and otitis media. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 1994;111:6–8.

Benowitz NL: Clinical pharmacology of nicotine. Ann. Rev. Med. 1986; 37:21–32.

Phillips DE, Hill L, Weller P et al: Tobacco smoke and the upper airway. Clin. Otolaryngol. 2003;28:492–96.

Becvarovski Z, Kartush JM: Smoking and tympanoplasty: implications for prognosis and the middle ear risk index (MERI). Laryngoscope.2001; 111:1806–11.

Nakhla V, Takwoingi YM, Sinha A: Myringoplasty: a comparison of bismuth iodoform paraffin paste gauze pack and tri-adcortyl ointment ear dressing. Laryngol Otol. 2007 Apr;121(4):329-32.

Sethi I, Singh I, Agarwal A, Sareen D: Pneumatization correlated to myringoplasty and tubal function. Indian J. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2005;57:4-8.

Prakash M, Nishi, Naveent M: Prospective study of 100 cases of underlay tympanoplasty with superiorly based circumferential flap for subtotal perforations.Indian J. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg.2007;59:225–28.