Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Risk stratification in endoscopic type I. tympanoplasty

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

Abstract

Purpose

Several risk factors were studied in endoscopic type I. tympanoplasty, however, an easy-to-use risk stratification model is still missing.

Methods

Retrospective chart review, focusing on individual risk factors and middle ear risk index (MERI). Patients who underwent endoscopic type I. tympanoplasty were included.

Results

Closed tympanic cavity was succesfully created in 88.1% of the 42 cases, the overall 21,5 dB air–bone gap (ABG) was reduced by 9,8 dB. The average MERI score of the patients was 2.1 ± 1.5. 78.6% of the patients were categorised into the mild, while 21.4% into the moderate risk group. The perforation was considered small in 81.0% of the cases, while large in 19.0%. The size of the perforation and the preoperative ABG, but not the MERI status were the only single predictors of success. Using a risk stratification model that is based on the size of the perforation, the preoperative ABG and MERI status, patients could be referred into two distinct groups of risk: the majority expecting excellent outcomes with maximum one risk factor present, and patients with deteriorated rate of success when having two or three risk factors.

Conclusions

Endoscopic type I. tympanoplasty with underlay perichondrium graft can be performed with good chance of success. However, if more than one risk factors are present, the chance of residual perforation becomes great. In addition to the established risk factors, our results point out that despite its strong correlation with perforation size, ABG may have a predictive role.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jolink C, Zwemstra MR, de Wolf MJF et al (2018) Success rate of tympanic membrane closure in the elderly compared to younger adults. Otol Neurotol 39:34–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Çayir S, Kayabaşi S (2019) Type 1 tympanoplasty in pediatric patients: comparison of fascia and perichondrium grafts. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 121:95–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Phillips JS, Yung MW, Nunney I (2015) Myringoplasty outcomes in the UK. J Laryngol Otol 129:860–864

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Özdamar K, Sen A (2019) Comparison of the anatomical and functional success of fascia and perichondrium grafts in transcanal endoscopic type 1 tympanoplasty. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 48:67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lade H, Choudhary SR, Vashishth A (2014) Endoscopic vs microscopic myringoplasty: a different perspective. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 271(7):1897–1902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dursun E, Terzi S, Demir E et al (2020) The evaluation of prognostic factors in endoscopic cartilage tympanoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol (online ahead of print)

  7. Onal K, Uguz MZ, Kazikdas KC et al (2005) A multivariate analysis of otological, surgical and patient-related factors in determining success in myringoplasty. Clin Otolaryngol. 30(2):115–120

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Tan HE, Santa Maria PL, Eikelboom RH et al (2016) Type I tympanoplasty meta-analysis: a single variable analysis. Otol Neurotol 37:838–846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Onofre R, Ha SC, Yang CJ et al (2018) Prognostic roles of preoperative CT findings and air-bone gaps in type 1 tympanoplasty. Acta Otolaryngol 138:795–800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Salviz M, Bayram O, Bayram AA et al (2015) Prognostic factors in type I tympanoplasty. Auris Nasus Larynx 42:20–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Li R, Wu N, Zhang J et al (2020) Analysis on the correlation between Eustachian tube function and outcomes of type I tympanoplasty for chronic suppurative otitis media. Acta Otolaryngol 140:664–667

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Visvanathan V, Vallamkondu V, Bhimrao SK (2018) What effect does smoking have on the surgical closure of tympanic membrane perforations? A review. Otol Neurotol 39:1217–1221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kartush JM (1994) Ossicular chain reconstruction: capitulum to malleus. Otolaryngol Clin N Am 27:689–715

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Becvarovski Z, Kartush JM (2001) Smoking and tympanoplast implications for prognosis and the middle ear risk index MERI. Laryngoscope 111:1806–1811

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Pinar E, Sadullahoglu K, Calli C et al (2008) Evaluation of prognostic factors and middle ear risk index in tympanoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 139:386–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Demir UL, Karaca S, Ozmen OA et al (2012) Is it the middle ear disease or the reconstruction material that determines the functional outcome in ossicular chain reconstruction? Otol Neurotol 33:580–585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Shishegar M, Faramarzi M, Rashidi RM (2019) Evaluation of middle ear risk index in patients undergoing tympanoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 276:2769–2774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kotecha B, Fowler S, Topham J (1999) Myringoplasty: a prospective audit study. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 24:126–129

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Plodpai Y (2018) Endoscopic vs microscopic overlay tympanoplasty for correcting large tympanic membrane perforations: a randomized clinical trial. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 159:879–886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Magliulo G, Iannella G (2018) Endoscopic versus microscopic approach in attic cholesteatoma surgery. Am J Otolaryngol 39:25–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tseng CC, Lai MT, Wu CC et al (2017) Comparison of the efficacy of endoscopic tympanoplasty and microscopic tympanoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Laryngoscope 127:1890–1896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Pap I, Tóth I, Gede N et al (2019) Endoscopic type I tympanoplasty is as effective as microscopic type I tympanoplasty but less invasive—A meta-analysis. Clin Otolaryngol 44:942–953

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. (1995) Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium guidelines for the evaluation of results of treatment of conductive hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 113:186–187

  25. Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA (2018) Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth Analg 126:1763–1768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. In: Parzen E, Tanabe K, Kitagawa G (eds) Selected papers of Hirotugu akaike. Springer series in statistics (perspectives in statistics). Springer, New York

  27. Austin PC, Steyerberg EW (2015) The number of subjects per variable required in linear regression analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 68:627–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hirji KF, Mehta CR, Patel NR (1987) Computing distributions for exact logistic regression. J Am Stat Assoc 82(400):1110–1117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kent DT, Kitsko DJ, Wine T et al (2014) Frequency-specific hearing outcomes in pediatric type I tympanoplasty. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 140:106–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mehta RP, Rosowski JJ, Voss SE et al (2006) Determinants of hearing loss in perforations of the tympanic membrane. Otol Neurotol 27:136–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lerut B, Pfammatter A, Moons J et al (2012) Functional correlations of tympanic membrane perforation size. Otol Neurotol 33:379–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Albu S, Babighian G, Trabalzini F (1998) Prognostic factors in tympanoplasty. Am J Otol 19:136–140

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Emir H, Ceylan K, Kizilkaya Z et al (2007) Success is a matter of experience: type 1 tympanoplasty: influencing factors on type 1 tympanoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 264:595–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ismi O, Gorur K, Gur H et al (2020) Double-layered (cartilage island + extra perichondrium) graft for type 1 Tympanoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg (online ahead of print)

  36. Vittinghoff E, McCulloch CE (2007) Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression. Am J Epidemiol 165:710–718

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Bajcsy-Zsilinszky Hospital, Maglódi Street 89-91, Budapest, 1106, Hungary

    Tamás Horváth, Barnabás Horváth, Bálint Liktor Jr. & Bálint Liktor

  2. Department of Health Economics, Corvinus University, Budapest, Hungary

    Zsombor Zrubka

Authors
  1. Tamás Horváth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barnabás Horváth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bálint Liktor Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zsombor Zrubka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bálint Liktor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tamás Horváth.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conficts of interest.

Ethics approval

The research protocol was approved by the regional ethics committee (ethics committee reference number: (No: IV/5520-2/2020/EKU).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Horváth, T., Horváth, B., Liktor, B. et al. Risk stratification in endoscopic type I. tympanoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 278, 4757–4766 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-021-06606-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-021-06606-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation