Endoscopic Myringoplasty Versus Microscopic Myringoplasty in Tubotympanic CSOM: A Comparative Study of 120 Cases

  • A. C. JyothiEmail author
  • B. H. Shrikrishna
  • N. H. Kulkarni
  • Ajay Kumar
Original Article


Myringoplasty is one of the commonest operations performed on the middle ear. Our aim was to compare the results of endoscopic permeatal myringoplasty with that of conventional myringoplasty by post aural approach using operating microscope. A total of 120 patients having central perforation of tympanic membrane were randomly divided into two equal groups of 60 patients each. In the first group, endoscope was used and in the second group microscope was used to do myringoplasty. Temporalis fascia was used as a graft material. The patients were kept in follow-up for 1 year. The pre-operative and post-operative audiograms, post-operative pain, graft uptake and time taken for surgery were compared in both the groups. The graft uptake rate was 91.67% in the endoscopic group, whereas it was 93.3% in the microscopic group. Post-operative pain was significantly less in the endoscopic group as compared with microscopic group and not much difference was found in the gain in A-B gap in either group. The mean ABG gain was 16.16 dB (SD = 4.68) in endoscopic group and 19.54 dB (SD = 3.45) in microscopic group. On applying the Mann–Whitney U test, this finding was statistically significant (p value = 0.0001). In our study success rate was equal between endoscopic and microscopic technique. In terms of morbidity and postoperative recovery endoscope produced better results. Endoscopic tympanoplasty can be a good alternative of microscopic tympanoplasty.


CSOM Endoscopic myringoplasty Conventional myringoplasty Post aural approach Oto-endoscopy 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee 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.


  1. 1.
    Harugop AS, Mudhol RS, Godhi RA (2008) A comparative study of endoscope assisted myringoplasty and microscope assisted myringoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 60:290–302Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Glasscock ME, Shambaugh GE (2003) Tympanoplasty. In: Glasscock and Shambaugh, surgery of the ear, 5th edn. People’s Medical Publishing House, Connecticut, pp 350–370Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    El-Guindy A (1992) Endoscopic transcanal myringoplasty. J Laryngol Otol 106:493–495CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mohindra S, Panda NK (2010) Ear surgery without microscope; is it possible. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 62(2):138–141CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Raj A, Meher R (2001) Endoscopic transcanal myringoplasty—a study. Indian J Otolaryngol head neck surg 53(1):47–49CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kakehata S, Futai K, Sasaki A, Shinkawa H (2006) Endoscopic transtympanic tympanoplasty in the treatment of conductive hearing loss: early results. Otol Neurotol 27(1):14–19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buckingham RA (1963) Endoscopic otophotography. Laryngoscope 73:71–74CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    EL-Guindy A (1993) Endoscopic transcanal myringoplasty. J Laryngol Otol 106:493–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mc Kennan KX (1993) Endoscopic second look mastoidoscopy to rule out residual epitympanic—mastoid cholesteatoma. Laryngoscope 103:810–814Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kennady DW (1997) Endoscopic sinus surgery. Otolaryngol Clin N Am 30:313–330Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fry TL, Newton DF (1979) Otoscopy and photography. Ann Otolaryngol 88:771–773Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Konrad HR et al (1979) Paediatric otoscopy and photography of the tympanic membrane. Otolaryngology 105:431–433Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Patel J, Aiyer RG, Gajjar Y, Gupta R, Raval J, Suthar PP (2015) Endoscopic tympanoplasty vs microscopic tympanoplasty in tubotympanic CSOM: a comparative study of 44 cases. Int J Res Med Sci 3(8):1953–1957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tarabichi M (1999) Endoscopic middle ear surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 108:39–46CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Usami S, Iijima N, Fujita S et al (2001) Endoscope-assisted myringoplasty. Otorhinolaryngology 63:287–290Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Quraishi MS, Jones NS (1995) Day care myringoplasty using tragal perichondrium. Clin Otolaryngol 20:12–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Parelkar K, Nagle S, Jagade M, Thorawade V, Khairnar P, Attakil A, Pandare M, Nataraj R, Hanwate R, Kar R (2015) Triple-c cartilage tympanoplasty: case series. Int J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 4:26–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fernandes SV (2003) Composite chondro-perichondrial clip tympanoplasty: the triple-C technique. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Off J Am Acad Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 128:267–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lela M, Michael W (2015) Minimally invasive transcanal endoscopic ear surgery, endoscopy—innovative uses and emerging technologies. In: Associate Prof. Amornyotin S (ed), InTech. doi:  10.5772/60551.
  20. 20.
    Lakpathi G, Reddy LS (2016) Comparative study of endoscope assisted myringoplasty and microscopic myringoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 68:185. doi: 10.1007/s12070-016-0970-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Otolaryngologists of India 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. C. Jyothi
    • 1
    Email author
  • B. H. Shrikrishna
    • 1
  • N. H. Kulkarni
    • 1
  • Ajay Kumar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ENT and Head-Neck SurgeryNavodaya Medical College Hospital and Research CentreRaichurIndia

Personalised recommendations