Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T08:30:25.727Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Factors affecting myringoplasty success

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2015

S D Carr*
Affiliation:
Department of ENT and Head and Neck Surgery, Bradford Royal Infirmary, UK
D R Strachan
Affiliation:
Department of ENT and Head and Neck Surgery, Bradford Royal Infirmary, UK
C H Raine
Affiliation:
Department of ENT and Head and Neck Surgery, Bradford Royal Infirmary, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr S D Carr, Department of ENT and Head and Neck Surgery, Bradford Royal Infirmary, UK E-mail: simoncarr15@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To identify factors that significantly influence myringoplasty success.

Methods:

A retrospective study was performed of all adults and children who underwent myringoplasty from January 2005 to January 2010 in a teaching hospital. Outcome measures were tympanic membrane perforation closure and air–bone gap closure to within 20 dB HL. The factors assessed were the surgeon grade, pre-operative condition of the ipsilateral and contralateral middle ears, perforation site, perforation size, graft material, and whether simultaneous cortical mastoidectomy was performed. Factors with statistically significant effects were determined by logistic regression analysis.

Results:

In the adult group, the perforation site significantly influenced tympanic membrane closure (p = 0.016): anterior (p = 0.008) and subtotal (p = 0.017) sites had the greatest influence. None of the factors proved to have a significant influence on tympanic membrane closure in the paediatric group.

Conclusion:

There was a significant association between perforation site and tympanic membrane perforation closure in adults. Anterior and subtotal perforations had a significantly reduced closure rate.

Type
Main Articles
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2015 

Introduction

Myringoplasty is a well-established procedure for tympanic membrane perforation closure. A variety of methods exist, employing different techniques and materials. Although many factors are thought to affect the success rate, there is no consensus. Therefore, our study aimed to identify which factors significantly influence tympanic membrane perforation closure.

Materials and methods

A retrospective study was performed of all patients, both adults and children (i.e. less than 16 years old) who underwent myringoplasty from January 2005 to January 2010 in a teaching hospital. All patients were identified using the theatre coding system. Inclusion and exclusion criteria used were in accordance with the National Comparative Myringoplasty Audit.Reference Jurovitzki and Sade1 Inclusion criteria comprised perforations of the pars tensa, all age groups, and cortical mastoidectomy and myringoplasty for non-cholesteatoma ears. Exclusion criteria comprised cholesteatoma surgery and concomitant ossiculoplasty. The two main outcome measures were an intact tympanic membrane and air–bone gap (ABG) closure by at least 20 dB HL or by at least 10 dB HL if the ABG was within 20 dB HL at post-operative follow up.

Potential influencing factors were surgeon grade (consultant, associate specialist or registrar); pre-operative condition of the ipsilateral middle ear (inactive or active chronic otitis media, with persistent or intermittent discharge); pre-operative condition of the contralateral middle ear (normal, otitis media with effusion, inactive chronic otitis media or active chronic otitis media); perforation site (anterior, posterior, inferior or subtotal); perforation size (0–20 per cent, 21–40 per cent, 41–60 per cent or subtotal); and simultaneous cortical mastoidectomy. The indication for a cortical mastoidectomy was myringoplasty in the presence of an actively discharging ear or a revision paediatric case. Several different graft materials were used: temporalis fascia, perichondrium, perichondrium and cartilage, fat, and periosteum.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using the XLSTAT statistical computer program (Addinsoft, New York, USA). Logistic regression analysis was used to determine which factors significantly influenced outcome. Statistical significance was set at a p value of less than 0.05.

Results

A total of 394 procedures were included, involving 313 adults and 81 children. The mean overall age was 35.8 (range 10–72), and the mean length of follow up was 7.5 months (range 2–48).

In the adult group, there were 263 (84 per cent) primary procedures and 50 (16 per cent) revisions; in the paediatric group, there were 70 (86 per cent) primary cases and 11 (14 per cent) revisions. The graft take rate was 81 per cent in the adult group and 85 per cent in the paediatric group. In the adult group, the tympanic membrane perforation site significantly influenced successful tympanic membrane closure at follow up (p = 0.016), with anterior (p = 0.008) and subtotal perforations (p = 0.017) demonstrating the greatest influence (Table I). No other factor significantly influenced tympanic membrane closure or ABG closure to within 20 dB HL. In the paediatric group, none of the factors significantly influenced either intact tympanic membrane closure or ABG closure to within 20 dB HL.

Table I Factors that significantly affect outcome in paediatric and adult patients*

*Outcome is an intact tympanic membrane or air–bone gap closure to within 20 dB HL. TM = tympanic membrane; ABG = air–bone gap; COM = chronic otitis media; ID = intermittent discharge; PD = persistent discharge; OME = otitis media with effusion

Discussion

The graft success rate achieved in this study is comparable with other studies, which report graft take rates of between 70.8 per cent and 97.8 per cent for both adults and children.Reference Jurovitzki and Sade1Reference Onal, Uguz, Kazikdas, Gursoy and Gokce9

This study demonstrated a significant association between perforation site and graft take rate, with anterior and subtotal perforation sites having the most influence on outcome. Anterior perforations were previously demonstrated to have an increased graft failure rate because of the technical difficulty of ensuring that the graft heals at the anterior rim of the perforation whilst avoiding anterior blunting and lateralisation of the graft.Reference Scally, Allen and Kerr10 Using fluorescein staining, Applebaum and Deutsch demonstrated the anterior to be the least vascular part of the tympanic membrane.Reference Applebaum and Deutsch11 Subtotal perforations are more likely to fail because there is no tympanic membrane remnant for the graft to heal on to. Previous studies either agree or disagree with this study. Frade Gonzalez et al. demonstrated that perforation site affects the perforation closure rate: subtotal perforations were associated with a reduced success rate.Reference Frade Gonzalez, Castro Vilas, Cabanas Rodriguez, Elhendi, Vaamonde Lago and Labella Caballero12 Jurovitzki et al. demonstrated that anterior perforation grafts were less successful than those of other perforation sites.Reference Jurovitzki and Sade1 Albera et al. demonstrated that the perforation site has a significant influence on the graft take rate, although they found that posterior perforations have a lower success rate.Reference Albera, Ferrero, Lacilla and Canale13 In contrast, several studies have found no significant relationship between perforation site and graft take rate in adultsReference Vartiainen and Nuutinen2, Reference Al-Ghamdi14, Reference Westerberg, Harder, Magnuson, Westerberg and Hyden15 and in children.Reference Caylan, Titiz, Falcioni, De Donato, Russo and Taibah16, Reference Berger and Berger17

Yung demonstrated a relationship between perforation site and hearing gain, with posterior perforations showing the greatest pre-operative hearing loss and post-operative gain.Reference Yung18

None of the other factors assessed in this study had a significant influence on perforation closure or hearing gain. In agreement with this study, Wasson et al. demonstrated that neither surgeon grade nor graft material had a significant effect on closure rate or hearing outcome.Reference Wasson, Papdimitriou and Pau19 In contrast, similar studies reported other factors to have significant effects on outcome. Several studies demonstrated a relationship between perforation size and closure rate. Jurado et al. and Lee et al. demonstrated a relationship between perforation size and both closure rate and hearing gain.Reference Jurado, Gil, Secall, Vadillo, Palau and Novoa20, Reference Lee, Kelly and Mills21 Others demonstrated a relationship between perforation size and hearing gain.Reference Wasson, Papdimitriou and Pau19, Reference Pfammatter, Novoa and Linder22, Reference Thiel, Mills and Mills23 In a study of 106 patients with a central dry perforation and an intact, mobile ossicular chain, Pfammatter et al. demonstrated complete closure of the ABG in 20 per cent of patients and closure to within 10 dB HL in 80 per cent of cases. These authors stated that perforation size had the greatest positive impact on outcome.Reference Pfammatter, Novoa and Linder22 In a study of 169 myringoplasties, Thiel et al. demonstrated ABG closure to within 10 dB HL in 53 per cent of patients and stated that hearing gain was more likely with larger perforations.Reference Thiel, Mills and Mills23 Vartiainen and Nuutinen demonstrated that perforation size had no effect on either ABG closure or hearing.Reference Vartiainen and Nuutinen2

This study found no significant relationship between a discharging ear (either persistent or intermittent) or a dry ear and either closure rate or hearing gain. In agreement with this, Onal et al. and Albera et al. demonstrated no difference in closure rates between discharging and dry ears.Reference Onal, Uguz, Kazikdas, Gursoy and Gokce9, Reference Albera, Ferrero, Lacilla and Canale13 Caylan et al. demonstrated that operating on actively discharging ears increased the closure rate from 75 per cent to 100 per cent in children.Reference Caylan, Titiz, Falcioni, De Donato, Russo and Taibah16 Mills et al. demonstrated no significant difference in closure rate between actively discharging (either intermittent or persistent) and inactive ears in a study of 268 ears over a 10-year period.Reference Mills, Thiel and Mills24 Thiel et al. demonstrated that patients with a discharging ear at the time of surgery were less likely to have an audiological gain following the operation.Reference Thiel, Mills and Mills23

This study demonstrated that the condition of the contralateral ear has no impact on closure rate or hearing gain. This is consistent with several other studies;Reference Carr, Poje, Nagy, Pizzuto and Brodsky6, Reference Albera, Ferrero, Lacilla and Canale13 however, other studies reported the contralateral ear status to have a significant effect on closure rate.Reference Onal, Uguz, Kazikdas, Gursoy and Gokce9, Reference Caylan, Titiz, Falcioni, De Donato, Russo and Taibah16, Reference Adkins and White25

This study demonstrated no relationship between simultaneous cortical mastoidectomy and graft take rate or hearing gain. In agreement, Albu et al. demonstrated that cortical mastoidectomy has no significant effect on graft take rate.Reference Albu, Trabalzini and Amadori26 McGrew et al. demonstrated that concomitant mastoidectomy was not necessary for successful perforation repair, although it did reduce the number of patients requiring future procedures and slowed disease progression.Reference McGrew, Jackson and Glasscock27 Yoon et al. demonstrated no significant difference in graft take rate between children who had undergone mastoidectomy and those who had not (97 per cent vs 98 per cent after 6 months), although they performed mastoidectomy in the presence of cholesteatoma.Reference Yoon, Park, Kim, Pae and Ahn28 Improvements in myringoplasty success when performed in conjunction with cortical mastoidectomy were previously demonstrated by Jackler and Schindler. These authors proposed that this occurred because a small mastoid volume, as well as chronic infectious middle-ear disease, has a detrimental effect on graft survival following myringoplasty.Reference Jackler and Schindler29, Reference Jackler and Schindler30

  • There is no consensus about which factors influence tympanic membrane closure and hearing gain following myringoplasty in adults or children

  • This study demonstrates a significant relationship between perforation site and closure rate in adults

  • In adults, lowest graft take rates are associated with anterior perforations

  • No factors significantly influence outcome in children

  • Surgeons should consider which factors influence myringoplasty success when obtaining patient consent and performing the procedure

This study identified no significant causative factors affecting the paediatric group. This result is consistent with several other studies. In a study of 604 children, Sckolnick et al. investigated many potential influencing factors, including graft material, prior otorrhoea and perforation site.Reference Sckolnick, Mantle, Li and Chi31 Only myringoplasty performed with Gelfoam® (as opposed to fat or paper) proved to have a significant effect on outcome. Kumar et al. showed that only younger age and anterior perforations were associated with a poorer outcome in a study of 132 children.Reference Kumar, Acharya, Hajihannas, Panagamuwa and McDermott32 Knapik et al. investigated similar factors to those used in this study and demonstrated no significant effect for any.Reference Knapik and Saliba33

Although reports are variable, it is important that surgeons appreciate which factors may influence myringoplasty outcome when obtaining informed consent and deciding whether to operate.

Footnotes

Presented as a podium talk at the Otorhinolaryngological Research Society Spring Meeting, 18 March 2011, London, UK, and as a poster at the American Academy of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery Foundation Conference, 11–14 September 2011, San Francisco, California, USA

References

1Jurovitzki, I, Sade, J. Myringoplasty: long-term followup. Am J Otol 1988;9:52–5Google ScholarPubMed
2Vartiainen, E, Nuutinen, J. Success and pitfalls in myringoplasty: follow-up study of 404 cases. Am J Otol 1993;14:301–5Google ScholarPubMed
3Gersdorff, M, Garin, P, Decat, M, Juantegui, M. Myringoplasty: long-term results in adults and children. Am J Otol 1995;16:532–5Google Scholar
4Bajaj, Y, Bais, AS, Mukherjee, B. Tympanoplasty in children--a prospective study. J Laryngol Otol 1998;112:1147–9Google Scholar
5Kageyama-Escobar, AM, Rivera-Moreno, MA, Rivera-Mendez, A. Risk factors for myringoplasty failure [in Spanish]. Gac Med Mex 2001;137:209–20Google Scholar
6Carr, MM, Poje, CP, Nagy, ML, Pizzuto, MP, Brodsky, LS. Success rates in paediatric tympanoplasty. J Laryngol Otol 2001;30:199202Google ScholarPubMed
7Dornhoffer, J. Cartilage tympanoplasty: indications, techniques, and outcomes in a 1,000-patient series. Laryngoscope 2003;113:1844–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Fadl, FA. Outcome of type-1 tympanoplasty. Saudi Med J 2003;24:5861Google ScholarPubMed
9Onal, 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;30:115–20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Scally, CM, Allen, L, Kerr, AG. The anterior hitch method of tympanic membrane repair. Ear Nose Throat J 1996;75:244–7Google Scholar
11Applebaum, EL, Deutsch, EC. Fluorescein angiography of the tympanic membrane. Laryngoscope 1985;95:1054–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Frade Gonzalez, C, Castro Vilas, C, Cabanas Rodriguez, E, Elhendi, W, Vaamonde Lago, P, Labella Caballero, T. Prognostic factors influencing anatomic and functional outcome in myringoplasty [in Spanish]. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 2002;53:729–35Google Scholar
13Albera, R, Ferrero, V, Lacilla, M, Canale, A. Tympanic reperforation in myringoplasty: evaluation of prognostic factors. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2006;115:875–9Google Scholar
14Al-Ghamdi, SA. Tympanoplasty: Factors influencing surgical outcome. Ann Saud Med 1994;14:483–5Google Scholar
15Westerberg, J, Harder, H, Magnuson, B, Westerberg, L, Hyden, D. Ten-year myringoplasty series: does the cause of perforation affect the success rate? J Laryngol Otol 2011;125:126–32Google Scholar
16Caylan, R, Titiz, A, Falcioni, M, De Donato, G, Russo, A, Taibah, A et al. Myringoplasty in children: factors influencing surgical outcome. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;118:709–13Google Scholar
17Berger, G, Berger, S. Paediatric revision myringoplasty: outcomes and prospects. J Laryngol Otol 2002;116:690–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Yung, MW. Myringoplasty: hearing gain in relation to perforation site. J Laryngol Otol 1983;97:1117Google Scholar
19Wasson, JD, Papdimitriou, CE, Pau, H. Myringoplasty: impact of perforation size on closure and audiological improvement. J Laryngol Otol 2009;123:973–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Jurado, FJA, Gil, JLM, Secall, MT, Vadillo, ED, Palau, EM, Novoa, MDM et al. Myringoplasty: auditory follow-up and study of prognostic factors [in Spanish]. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 2009;60:169–75Google Scholar
21Lee, P, Kelly, G, Mills, RP. Myringoplasty: does the size of the perforation matter? Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2002;27:331–4Google Scholar
22Pfammatter, A, Novoa, E, Linder, T. Can myringoplasty close the air-bone gap? Otol Neurotol 2013;34:705–10Google Scholar
23Thiel, G, Mills, RP, Mills, N. Factors affecting hearing improvement following successful repair of the tympanic membrane. J Laryngol Otol 2013;127:349–53Google Scholar
24Mills, R, Thiel, G, Mills, N. Results of myringoplasty operations in active and inactive ears in adults. Laryngoscope 2013;123:2245–9Google Scholar
25Adkins, WY, White, B. Type I tympanoplasty: influencing factors. Laryngoscope 1984;94:916–18Google Scholar
26Albu, S, Trabalzini, F, Amadori, M. Usefulness of cortical mastoidectomy in myringoplasty. Otol Neurotol 2012;33:604–9Google Scholar
27McGrew, BM, Jackson, CG, Glasscock, ME 3rd. Impact of mastoidectomy on simple tympanic membrane perforation repair. Laryngoscope 2004;114:506–11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Yoon, TH, Park, SK, Kim, JY, Pae, KH, Ahn, JH. Tympanoplasty, with or without mastoidectomy, is highly effective for treatment of chronic otitis media in children. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 2007;558:44–8Google Scholar
29Jackler, RK, Schindler, RA. Myringoplasty with simple mastoidectomy: results in 82 consecutive patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1983;91:1417Google Scholar
30Jackler, RK, Schindler, RA. Role of the mastoid in tympanic membrane reconstruction. Laryngoscope 1984;94:495500CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31Sckolnick, JS, Mantle, B, Li, J, Chi, DH. Pediatric myringoplasty: factors that affect success – a retrospective study. Laryngoscope 2008;118:723–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32Kumar, S, Acharya, A, Hajihannas, E, Panagamuwa, C, McDermott, AL. Pediatric myringoplasty: definition of ‘success’ and factors affecting outcome. Otol Neurotol 2010;31:1417–20Google Scholar
33Knapik, M, Saliba, I. Pediatric myringoplasty: a study of factors affecting outcome. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2011;75:818–23CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table I Factors that significantly affect outcome in paediatric and adult patients*