Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Annals of Otology and Neurotology 2018; 01(02): 083-088
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1676951
Original Article
Indian Society of Otology

A Prospective Comparative Study between Dry and Wet Tympanoplasty

Hepsiba Pothala
1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, KKR ENT Hospital and Research Institute, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Sunita Chhapola Shukla
2   Mumbai Port Trust Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
,
Wasim Khan
1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, KKR ENT Hospital and Research Institute, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Ravi Ramalingam
1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, KKR ENT Hospital and Research Institute, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
3   KKR ENT Super Specialty Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
4   Chinnammal ENT Medical Education and Research Foundation, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Kombupalayam Komarappa Ramalingam
1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, KKR ENT Hospital and Research Institute, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
3   KKR ENT Super Specialty Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
4   Chinnammal ENT Medical Education and Research Foundation, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
04 January 2019 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Tympanoplasty is the well-established procedure for closure of perforations of tympanic membrane.

Study Design This study was a prospective comparative study.

Objective The objective of this study was to compare the hearing improvement and graft uptake rate between dry and wet tympanoplasty performed on tubotympanic type of chronic suppurative otitis media.

Materials and Methods One hundred forty patients with tubotympanic type of chronic otitis media were selected and categorized into dry and wet ears. Tympanoplasty was performed using temporalis fascia by underlay technique in all cases. Postoperatively, graft uptake rate and hearing improvement were analyzed.

Results The graft uptake rate was equal in both dry and wet ears, which was statistically insignificant. There was no statistically significant difference in the hearing improvement between the dry ears and wet ears (χ – 2.39, p = 0.122).

Conclusion Factors such as age, sex, and status of the contralateral ear and wet ear did not have any impact on the postoperative graft uptake of tympanoplasty. There was no difference in the graft uptake between the dry and wet ears and there was no statistically significant difference between hearing improvement in both and wet ears.

Keywords

chronic suppurative otitis media - dry ear - wet ear - tympanoplasty
 

  • References

  • 1 Merchant SN, McKenna MJ, Rosowski JJ. Current status and future challenges of tympanoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 1998; 255 (05) 221-228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Dhingra PL. Cholesteatoma and chronic otitis media, Diseases of ear, nose and throat 5th ed. 2010:75–83
  • 3 Hosney S, El-Anwar M, Abdelhady M, Khazbak A, El-Feky A. Outcome of myringoplasty in wet and dry ears. Int Adv Otol 2014; 10 (03) 256-259
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Berthold E. Uebermyringoplastik. Wier Med Bull 1878; 1: 627
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Shimada T, Lim DJ. The fiber arrangement of the human tympanic membrane. A scanning electron microscopic observation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1971; 80 (02) 210-217
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Zollner F. The principles of plastic surgery of the sound-conducting apparatus. J Laryngol Otol 1955; 69 (10) 637-652
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Tarasov DI. Disease of the middle ear. M Medicine 1988; 66: 1076-1095
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Sergi B, Galli J, De Corso E, Parrilla C, Paludetti G. Overlay versus underlay myringoplasty: report of outcomes considering closure of perforation and hearing function. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2011; 31 (06) 366-371
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Pignataro L, Grillo Della Berta L, Capaccio P, Zaghis A. Myringoplasty in children: anatomical and functional results. J Laryngol Otol 2001; 115 (05) 369-373
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 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; 30 (02) 115-120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Denoyelle F, Roger G, Chauvin P, Garabedian EN. Myringoplasty in children: predictive factors of outcome. Laryngoscope 1999; 109 (01) 47-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Westerberg J, Harder H, Magnuson B, Westerberg L, Hydén D. Ten-year myringoplasty series: does the cause of perforation affect the success rate?. J Laryngol Otol 2011; 125 (02) 126-132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Albera R, Ferrero V, Lacilla M, Canale A. Tympanic reperforation in myringoplasty: evaluation of prognostic factors. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2006; 115 (12) 875-879
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Caylan R, Titiz A, Falcioni M. et al. Myringoplasty in children: factors influencing surgical outcome. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998; 118 (05) 709-713
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Booth JB. Myringoplasty—factors affecting results. Final report. J Laryngol Otol 1973; 87 (11) 1039-1084
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Griffin Jr WL. A retrospective study of traumatic tympanic membrane perforations in a clinical practice. Laryngoscope 1979; 89 (2 Pt 1) 261-282
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sharma M, Singh P, Goel M, Kotwal D, Kapoor M. Dry versus wet myringoplasty: our experience. Int J Dent Med Res 2015; 1 (06) 47-50
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Naderpour M, Shahidi N, Hemmatjoo T. comparison of Tympanoplasty results in dry and wet ears. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol 2016; 28 (86) 209-214
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Glasscock ME III, Jackson CG, Nissen AJ, Schwaber MK. Postauricular undersurface tympanic membrane grafting: a follow-up report. Laryngoscope 1982; 92 (7 Pt 1) 718-727
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Vijayendra H, Rangam CK, Sangeeta R. Comparative study of tympanoplasty in wet perforation v/s totally dry perforation in tubotympanic disease. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006; 58 (02) 165-167
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Glasscock ME III, House WF. Homograft reconstruction of the middle ear. A preliminary report. Laryngoscope 1968; 78 (07) 1219-1225
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Pal MB, Khan N. Incidence of complications in temporal bone due to cholesteatoma. 1995; 10(4): 109-111
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Mills R, Thiel G, Mills N. Results of myringoplasty operations in active and inactive ears in adults. Laryngoscope 2013; 123 (09) 2245-2249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Gersdorff M, Garin P, Decat M, Juantegui M. Myringoplasty: long-term results in adults and children. Am J Otol 1995; 16 (04) 532-535
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Noh H, Lee DH. Vascularisation of myringo-/tympanoplastic grafts in active and inactive chronic mucosal otitis media: a prospective cohort study. Clin Otolaryngol 2012; 37 (05) 355-361
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Raj A, Tripathi V. Review of patients undergoing wet myringoplasty. Indian J Otol 1999; 5 (03) 134-136
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Ophir D, Porat M, Marshak G. Myringoplasty in the pediatric population. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1987; 113 (12) 1288-1290
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Shaikh AA, Onali MAS, Shaikh SM, Rafi T. Outcome of tympanoplasty type-I by underlay technique. J Liaquat Uni Med Health Sci. 2009; 8 (01) 80-84
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Bluestone CD, Cantekin EI, Douglas GS. Eustachian tube function related to the results of tympanoplasty in children. Laryngoscope 1979; 89 (03) 450-458
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Sheehy JL, Anderson RG. Myringoplasty. A review of 472 cases. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1980; 89 (4 Pt 1) 331-334
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Harder H, Jerlvall L, Kylén P, Ekvall L. Calculation of hearing results after tympanoplasty. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1982; 7 (04) 221-229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Umapathy N, Dekker PJ. Myringoplasty: is it worth performing in children?. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003; 129 (10) 1053-1055
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Karela M, Berry S, Watkins A, Phillipps JJ. Myringoplasty: surgical outcomes and hearing improvement: is it worth performing to improve hearing?. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2008; 265 (09) 1039-1042
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Perkins R, Bui HT. Tympanic membrane reconstruction using formaldehyde-formed autogenous temporalis fascia: twenty years’ experience. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1996; 114 (03) 366-379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Nagle SK, Jagade MV, Gandhi SR, Pawar PV. Comparative study of outcome of type I tympanoplasty in dry and wet ear. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009; 61 (02) 138-140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Bennett RJ. Observations on drumhead repair in tympanoplastic surgery. J Laryngol Otol 1971; 85 (08) 745-772
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Fadl FA. Outcome of type-1 tympanoplasty. Saudi Med J 2003; 24 (01) 58-61
    PubMedGoogle Scholar