Skip to main content
Log in

Outcome of Interlay Grafting in Type 1 Tympanoplasty for Large Central Perforation

Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A prospective, cohort, clinical study was conducted at Dr. D. Y. Patil Hospital, Kolhapur from August 2010 to August 2013. The aim was to evaluate the results of type 1 interlay tympanoplasty with respect to graft uptake, hearing improvement and complications. Total of 100 cases with a mucosal type of chronic suppurative otitis media and a large central perforation (involving more than 50 % of tympanic membrane) were operated for type 1 tympanoplasty where the graft was placed by interlay method (below the fibro-squamous layer and above the mucosal or endothelial layer). Patients were followed up with ear microscopy at each follow up visit and an audiometry at the end of 3rd month. Statistical analysis was done by statcal software using paired t test and two sample t test for proportion. 96 (96 %) cases had a successful graft uptake. The mean pre-operative air-bone gap was 36.42 ± 12.0 dB; whereas the mean post-operative air-bone gap was 9.7 ± 6.71 dB. Except for residual perforation in four patients and partial tympanomeatal flap necrosis in two patients no other complications were encountered. Thus, we conclude that, the interlay tympanoplasty is a safe and effective method of graft placement for large central perforation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Matsuda Y, Kurita T, Ueda Y, Ito S, Nakashima T (2009) Effect of tympanic membrane perforation on middle-ear sound transmission. J Laryngol Otol 123(Suppl. S31):81–89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Athanasiadis-Sismanis A (2010) Tympanoplasty: tympanic membrane repair. In: Gulya AJ, Minor LB, Poe DS (eds) Glasscock-Shambaugh surgery of the ear, 6th edn. Peoples Medical Publishing House, Shelton, pp 465–488

  3. Athanasiadis-Sismanis A (2010) Ossicular Chain Reconstruction. In: Gulya AJ, Minor LB, Poe DS (eds) Glasscock-Shambaugh surgery of the ear, 6th edn. Peoples Medical Publishing House, Shelton, pp 489–500

  4. Glasscock ME III (1973) Tympanic membrane grafting with fascia: overlay vs. undersurface technique. Laryngoscope 83:754–770

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Packer P, Mackendrick A, Solar M (1982) What’s best in myringoplasty: underlay or overlay, dura or fascia. J Laryngol Otol 96:25–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Rizer FM (1997) Overlay versus underlay tympanoplasty. Part 1: historical review of the literature. Laryngoscope 107:1–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kartush JM, Michaelides EM, Becvarovskiz Z et al (2002) Over–under tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope 112:802–807

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sengupta A, Basak B, Ghosh D, Basu D, Adhikari D, Maity K (2012) A study on outcome of underlay overlay and combined techniques of myringoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 64(1):63–66

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Umar AS, Ahmed Z (2008) Anatomical and functional outcome following type 1 tympanoplasty in chronic tubotympanic suppurative otitis media. Pak Armed Forces Med J 1:1–5

  10. Mokhtarinejad F, Okhovat S, Barzegar F (2012) Surgical and hearing results of the circumferential subannular grafting technique in tympanoplasty: a randomized clinical study. Am J Otolaryngol 33:75–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lima JCBD, Marone SAM, Martucci O, Goncalez F, Silva Neto JJD, Ramos ACM (2011) Evaluation of the organic and functional results of tympanoplasties through a retro-auricular approach at a medical residency unit. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 77(2):229–236

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sergi B, Galli J, De Corso E, Parrilla C, Paludetti G (2011) Overlay versus underlay myringoplasty: report of outcomes considering closure of perforation and hearing function. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 31(6):366–371

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee P, Kelly G, Mills RP (2002) Myringoplasty: does the size of the perforation matter? Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 27:331–334

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Mehta K, Sinha V, Chhaya V, Barot D, Patel P, Patil S, Parmar V, Prashant C, Maniyar H (2009) Audiometric and operative results in type I tympanoplasty. World Article EAR, NOSE, THROAT www.waent.org.oct. Vol 2–2

  15. Singh BJ, Sengupta A, Das S, Ghosh D, Basak B (2009) A comparative study of different graft materials used in myringoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 61:131–134

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Karela M, Sandeep B, Watkins A, Phillips J (2008) Myringoplasty: surgical outcomes and hearing improvement: is it worth performing to improve hearing? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 265:1039–1042

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Mishra P, Sonkhya N, Mathur N (2007) Prospective study of 100 cases of underlay tympanoplasty with superiorly based circumferential flap for subtotal perforations. Indian J otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 59:225–228

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Singh M, Rai A, Bandyopadhyay S, Gupta SC (2003) Comparative study of underlay and overlay techniques of myringoplasty in large and subtotal perforations of the tympanic membrane. J Laryngol Otol 117(6):444–448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Stage J, Bak-Pedersen K (1992) Underlay tympanoplasty with the graft lateral to the malleus handle. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 17(1):6–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Glasscock ME III (1973) Tympanic membrane grafting with fascia: overlay vs. undersurface technique. Laryngoscope 83:754–770

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Guo M, Huang Y, Wang J (1999) Report of myringoplasty with interlay method in 53 ears perforation of tympani. Lin Chuang Er Bi Yan Hou Ke Za Zhi J Clin Otorhinolaryngol 13(4):147–149

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Komune S, Wakizono S, Hisashi K, Uemura T (1992) Interlay method for myringoplasty. Auriss Nasus Larynx 19(1):17–22

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Yadav S, Aggarwal N, Julaha M, Goel A (2009) Endoscopic assisted myringoplasty. Singap Med J 50(5):510–512

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Saha Ashok K, Munshi DM, Ghosh SN (2006) Evaluation of improvement of hearing in type 1 tympanoplasty and its influencing factors. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 58(3):253–257

    Google Scholar 

  25. Fouad T, Rifaat M, Buhaibeh Q (2010) Utilization of amniotic membrane for graft repair of the tympanic membrane perforation. Egypt J Ear Nose Throat Allied Sci 11:97–101

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. C. Patil.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Patil, B.C., Misale, P.R., Mane, R.S. et al. Outcome of Interlay Grafting in Type 1 Tympanoplasty for Large Central Perforation. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 66, 418–424 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-014-0741-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-014-0741-3

Keywords

Navigation