Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The significance of selected prognostic factors in pediatric tympanoplasty

  • Otology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this study was to determine the importance of selected prognostic factors on outcomes of tympanoplasty in children.

Materials and methods

241 children classified into three age groups (3–7, 8–12 and 13–18), had undergone tympanoplasty between 2001 and 2007 and were subsequently observed for at least 2 years. Prognostic factors were assessed with regard to their impact on the functional and anatomical outcome of the tympanoplasty defined, respectively, as postoperative air–bone gap and state of the middle ear.

Results

In 85% of children, a tympanic membrane reconstruction was performed. An unchanged TM was achieved in 85% of the patients in early results and in 76% in later results. Air–bone gap closure was observed in 66% of cases. The earlier preventive retraction pocket tympanoplasty was performed, the better anatomical results were obtained—ranging from 91% in the 3–7 age group versus 75–70% in 8–12 and 13–18 age groups. The results of total or subtotal perforation reconstructions were worse than for small perforation with closure rates of 76.5% vs 94.5%, respectively.

Conclusion

Age is not a factor determining the success rate in pediatric tympanoplasty. A better surgical outcome can be achieved in children with a dry ear, and better middle ear condition, because of previously performed surgeries. Preventive tympanoplasty is also advantageous. The hearing results in type 2 and 3 tympanoplasty are similar, but type 1 tympanoplasty has superior efficacy to the former two types.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lancaster JL et al (1999) Paediatric tympanoplasty. J Laryngol Otol 113(7):628–632

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Strong MS (1972) The eustachian tube: basic considerations. Otolaryngol Clin N Am 5(1):19–27

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Boronat-Echeverría NE, Reyes-García E, Sevilla-Delgado Y, Aguirre-Mariscal H, Mejía-Aranguré JM (2012) Prognostic factors of successful tympanoplasty in pediatric patients: a cohort study. BMC Pediatrics 12(1):592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Knapik M, Saliba I (2011) Pediatric myringoplasty: a study of factors affecting outcome. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 75(6):818–823

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Black B (1992) Ossiculoplasty prognosis: the spite method of assessment. Am J Otol 13(6):544–551

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Raine CH, Singh SD (1983) Tympanoplasty in children. A review of 114 cases. J Laryngol Otol 97(3):217–221

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Collins W (2003) Pediatric tympanoplasty, effect of contralateral ear status on outcomes. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 129:646–651

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kent DT, Kitsko DJ, Wine T, Chi DH (2014) Frequency-specific hearing outcomes in pediatric type I tympanoplasty. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 140(2):106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lynrah ZA, Bakshi J, Panda NK, Khandelwal NK (2013) Aggressiveness of pediatric cholesteatoma. Do we have an evidence? Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 65(3):264–268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chandrasekhar SS, House JW, Devgan U (1995) Pediatric tympanoplasty. A 10-year experience. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 121(8):873–878

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Tono T, Sakagami M, Kojima H, Yamamoto Y, Matsuda K, Komori M, Hashimoto S (2017) Staging and classification criteria for middle ear cholesteatoma proposed by the Japan Otological Society. Auris Nasus Larynx 44(2):135–140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Denoyelle F et al (1998) Results of tympanoplasty in children with primary ciliary dyskinesia. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 124(2):177–179

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Te GO, Rizer FM, Schuring AG (1998) Pediatric tympanoplasty of iatrogenic perforations from ventilation tube therapy. Am J Otol 19(3):301–305

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Caylan R et al (1998) Myringoplasty in children: factors influencing surgical outcome. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 118(5):709–713

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kessler A, Potsic WP, Marsh RR (1994) Type 1 tympanoplasty in children. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 120(5):487–490

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Yegin Y, Çelik M, Altintaş A, Çolak C, Kayhan FT (2017) Do the angle and length of the eustachian tube affect the success rate of pediatric cartilage type 1 tympanoplasty? J Craniofac Surg 28(3):1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Faramarzi M, Dehbozorgi MM, Heydari ST (2015) Is cholesteatoma a risk factor for graft success rate in chronic otitis media surgery? Iran J Otorhinolaryngol 27(83):417–422

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. James AL, Papsin BC (2012) Ten top considerations in pediatric tympanoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 147(6):992–998

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rawool VW (2017) Prevalence of auditory problems in children with feeding and swallowing disorders. J Speech Lang Hear Res 60(5):1436–1447

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Carr MM et al (2001) Success rates in paediatric tympanoplasty. J Otolaryngol 30(4):199–202

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Sánchez Barrueco A, Lora Pablos D, Sanz VM, Almodóvar Álvarez C (2015) Pediatric myringoplasty: prognostic factors in surgical outcome and hearing threshold recovery. Acta Otolaryngol 135(12):1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lerut B, Pfammatter A, Moons J, Linder T (2012) Functional correlations of tympanic membrane perforation size. Otol Neurotol 33(3):379–386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Heo KW (2017) Outcomes of type I tympanoplasty using a cartilage shield graft in patients with poor prognostic factors. Auris Nasus Larynx 44(5):517–521

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pfammatter A, Novoa E, Linder T (2013) Can myringoplasty close the air–bone gap? Otol Neurotol 34(4):705–710

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ophir D, Porat M, Marshak G (1987) Myringoplasty in the pediatric population. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 113(12):1288–1290

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Blanshard JD et al (1990) A long term view of myringoplasty in children. J Laryngol Otol 104(10):758–762

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Wiatr M et al (2011) Prognostic factors in patients operated on eardrum perforation with intact ossicular chain. Otolaryngol Pol 65(4):266–271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tsilis NS, Vlastarakos PV, Chalkiadakis VF, Kotzampasakis DS, Nikolopoulos TP (2013) Chronic Otitis media in children. Clin Pediatr 52(9):795–802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Austin DF (1997) Tympanoplasty: yesterday, today and tomorrow. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 22(1):3–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Fisch U (2004) Tympanolastyka mastoidectomia i chirurgia strzemiączka. Gołąbek W (ed). Urban& Partners, Wrocław

  31. Şevik Eliçora S, Erdem D, Dinç AE, Damar M, Bişkin S (2017) The effects of surgery type and different ossiculoplasty materials on the hearing results in cholesteatoma surgery. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274(2):773–780

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. De Vos C, Gersdorff M, Gerard JM (2007) Prognostic factors in ossiculoplasty. Otol Neurotol 28(1):61–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Brackmann DE, Sheehy JL (1979) Tympanoplasty: TORPS and PORPS. Laryngoscope 89(1):108–114

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Brackmann DE, Sheehy JL, Luxford WM (1984) TORPs and PORPs in tympanoplasty: a review of 1042 operations. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 92(1):32–37

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Tos M (1993) Manual od middle ear surgery. vol 1. Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  36. Charachon R (1988) Classification of retraction pockets. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord) 109(3):205–207

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Asai M et al (1999) Evaluation of a cement incus replacement prosthesis in a temporal bone model. Acta Otolaryngol 119(5):573–576

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Morris DP, Bance M, Van Wijhe RG (2004) How do cartilage and other material overlay over a prosthesis affect its vibration transmission properties in ossiculoplasty? Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 131(4):423–428

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Murugasu E, Puria S, Roberson JB Jr (2005) Malleus-to-footplate versus malleus-to-stapes-head ossicular reconstruction prostheses: temporal bone pressure gain measurements and clinical audiological data. Otol Neurotol 26(4):572–582

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Jesic SD et al (2014) Pars tensa retractions without cholesteatoma in children: predictors for ossicular chain destruction, air conduction thresholds, and postoperative retractions. Otol Neurotol 35(6):997–1002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sevik Elicora S et al (2016) The effects of surgery type and different ossiculoplasty materials on the hearing results in cholesteatoma surgery. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274:773–780

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Trinidade A, Skingsley A, Yung MW (2015) Mastoid obliteration surgery for cholesteatoma in 183 adult ears—a 5-year prospective cohort study: our experience. Clin Otolaryngol 40(6):721–726

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otolaryngology, Audiology and Phoniatrics, Children’s Hospital of Bydgoszcz, Bydgoszcz, Poland

    Aleksander Zwierz, Karolina Haber, Justyna Tyra & Józef Mierzwiński

  2. Department of Otolaryngology, Audiology and Phoniatrics, University Hospital of Bydgoszcz, Bydgoszcz, Poland

    Aleksander Zwierz, Anna Sinkiewicz & Paulina Kalińczak-Górna

Authors
  1. Aleksander Zwierz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karolina Haber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anna Sinkiewicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paulina Kalińczak-Górna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Justyna Tyra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Józef Mierzwiński
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paulina Kalińczak-Górna.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zwierz, A., Haber, K., Sinkiewicz, A. et al. The significance of selected prognostic factors in pediatric tympanoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 276, 323–333 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-018-5193-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-018-5193-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation