Advertisement

Comparative Study of Endoscope Assisted Myringoplasty and Microscopic Myringoplasty

  • G. Lakpathi
  • L. Sudarshan ReddyEmail author
  • Anand
Original Article

Abstract

To study and compare the outcomes of the endoscopic versus microscopic approach to Myringoplasty in 60 patients. In this prospective study, the outcomes of 60 ears of 60 patients (40 male and 20 female) who underwent Myringoplasty were evaluated. The age range of the patients was 15–55 years. Group 1 underwent Myringoplasty with an endoscopic technique (n = 30), and Group 2 underwent Myringoplasty with the conventional microscopic technique (n = 30). A temporalis fascia graft was used in both groups. The outcomes were analyzed in terms of the hearing gain, duration of surgery, graft success rate and advantages and disadvantages of endoscopic versus microscopic approach to Myringoplasty. In both groups, the postoperative air-bone gap (ABG) was significantly lower than the preoperative ABG. There were no significant differences between the preoperative and postoperative ABG values (in dB) in either group. The mean operative duration in Group 1 (96.32 min) was significantly lower than that in Group 2 (136.09 min). In the preoperative evaluation of patients in Group 1 had small, medium, large perforations are 16 (53 %), 12 (40 %), and 02 (7 %), respectively. In Group 2, had small, medium, large perforations are 12 (40 %), 15 (50 %), and 03 (10 %), respectively. Perforations (wet ear) were detected in 10 (33 %), 06 (20 %), and 04 (12 %) of the patients in Group 1 at postoperative months 1, 3, and 6, respectively. Perforations (wet ear) were detected 09 (30 %), 06 (20 %) and 03 (10 %) patients in Group 2 at postoperative months 1, 3, and 6. At 6 months postoperatively, there were smaller perforations and reduced rate of perforations as compared to 1st and 3rd month in Group 1 and Group 2. The difference between the perforation conditions (larger vs. smaller) was not significant in either group. The preoperative and postoperative increases in the ABG were associated. At the end of 6 months all (100 %) patients in the Group 1 rated their cosmetic result as excellent as compared in the Group 2. Unlike the microscope, the endoscope is easily transportable and hence is ideal for use in ear surgery camps conducted in remote places. In patients undergoing Myringoplasty, especially if the external ear canal is narrow and the anterior canal wall is prominent, the endoscopic and microscopic approaches appear to give equal results in terms of easy visualization of the entire tympanic membrane and no requirement for extra intervention to evaluate the ossicular system. A shorter operative duration and excellent cosmetic result is an advantage of the endoscopic Myringoplasty technique.

Keywords

Endoscopic myringoplasty Microscopic myringoplasty Operative duration 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors of this article declare that he/she has no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights

Animals were not involved in this study.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Tarabichi M (1999) Endoscopic middle ear surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 108:39–46CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Glasscock ME (1973) Tympanic membrane grafting with fascia; overlay vs. undersurface technique. Laryngoscope 83(5):754–770CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wullstein H (1956) The restoration of the function of the middle ear, in chronic otitis media. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 65:1020–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Raj A, Meher R (2001) Endoscopic transcanal myringoplasty—a study. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 53(1):47–49CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wullstien H (1953) Technic and early results of tympanoplasty. Monatsschr Ohrenheilkd Laryngorhinol 87(4):308–311Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Raj A, Meher R (2001) Endoscopic transcanal myringoplasty—a study. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 53:47–49CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mohindra S, Panda NK (2010) Ear surgery without microscope; is it possible. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 62(2):138–141CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    El-Guindy A (1992) Endoscopic transcanal myringoplasty. J Laryngol Otol 106:493–495CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Usami S, Iijima N, Fujita S et al (2001) Endoscope-assisted myringoplasty. Otorhinolaryngology 63:287–290Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Patil RN (2003) Endoscopic tympanoplasty—definitely advantageous (preliminary reports). Asian J Ear Nose Throat 25:9–13Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rosenberg SI (1996) Endoscopic otologic surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 29:291–300PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Karhuketo TS, Ilomaki JH, Puhakka HJ (2001) Tympanoscope-assisted myringoplasty. Otorhinolaryngology 63:353–358Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jadav SP et al (2009) Endoscope assisted myringoplasty. Singap Med J 50(5):510Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Otolaryngologists of India 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Govt.Medical College/HospitalNizamabadIndia

Personalised recommendations