Advertisement

CO2 Laser for De-epithelialization in Tympanoplasty

  • Lakshmi NairEmail author
  • Neil Gildener-Leapman
  • Steven Parnes
Original Article
  • 14 Downloads

Abstract

Tympanoplasty repairs tympanic membrane perforations but also covers an umbrella of procedures characterized by surgery of the mastoid bone. Tympanoplasty is widely regarded as a beneficial procedure with an over 90% graft closure success rate and an over 80% return to normal hearing range. Though surgical technique and graft type are important in determining surgical outcomes of the procedure, results are most greatly correlated with location of the perforation. Marginal perforations are associated with the most complications in reconstruction of the tympanic membrane, lack of vascularization and limited membrane area delaying the healing process (4). Lasers have been used in medical procedures dating back to the 1960s. The advantage of infrared lasers such as CO2 are the precision of cutting and the smooth interaction with tissues (5). The CO2 laser is absorbed by the tympanic membrane and does not damage the middle ear while visible lasers penetrate and can damage the ear drum (6). This retrospective study of 150 patients from 2013–2016 assesses and demonstrates the viability of using carbon dioxide laser as an alternative to the traditional method for de-epithelialization of tympanic perforation margins during tympanoplasty. By comparing closure rates and audiogram data, this study reveals parameters of use, benefits and adverse outcomes on healing and hearing restoration with the CO2 laser-assisted method. Perforation closure rate of 91% and hearing improvement in 66% of patients was observed. Fourteen patients did not undergo closure of the tympanic membrane with an overwhelming majority of the 14 having large and marginal perforations.

Keywords

Laser Tympanoplasty Tympanic Membrane Perforation 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has a financial interest in any of the products, devices, or drugs mentioned in this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Alicandri-Ciufelli M et al (2012) Tympanoplasty: an up-to-date pictorial review. J Neuroradiol 39(3):149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shetty S (2012) Pre-operative and post-operative assessment of hearing following tympanoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 64(4):377–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Naderpour M et al (2016) Evaluation of factors affecting the surgical outcome in tympanoplasty. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol 28(85):99–104PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schraff S, Dash N, Strasnick B (2005) “Window shade” tympanoplasty for anterior marginal perforations. Laryngoscope 115(9):1655–1659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Landegger LD, Cohen MS (2016) Use of the flexible fiber CO2 laser in pediatric transcanal endoscopic middle ear surgery. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 85:154–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cho YS et al (2010) Revision surgery for chronic otitis media: characteristics and outcomes in comparison with primary surgery. Auris Nasus Larynx 37(1):18–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heo KW (2017) Outcomes of type I tympanoplasty using a cartilage shield graft in patients with poor prognostic factors. Auris Nasus Larynx 44(5):517–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Salviz M, Ozkul MH (2015) Prognostic factors in type I tympanoplasty. Auris Nasus Larynx 42(1):20–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Otolaryngologists of India 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Albany Medical CollegeAlbanyUSA
  2. 2.Division of OtolaryngologyAlbany Medical CollegeAlbanyUSA

Personalised recommendations