European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 276, Issue 10, pp 2769–2774 | Cite as

Evaluation of middle ear risk index in patients undergoing tympanoplasty

  • Mahmood ShishegarEmail author
  • Mohammad Faramarzi
  • Mohsen Rashidi Ravari



Tympanoplasty is a standard surgical procedure for the treatment of chronic otitis media. In this study, we aimed to determine the effect of the predictive factors of middle ear risk index (MERI) in patients undergoing tympanoplasty.

Materials and methods

A total of 200 patients who underwent tympanoplasty surgery from 2008 to 2018 at Khalili hospital in Shiraz were evaluated. In this study, variables such as age, sex, systemic diseases (diabetes mellitus, hypertension), location and size of tympanic membrane perforation (TMP), health of the opposite ear, dryness duration of the ear, presence or absence of myringosclerosis during surgery, type of operation and the risk of MERI were evaluated.


The success rate for a 6-month follow-up of patients was 88%. Results showed that there was a significant difference between the MERI scores and the three types of operation of intact canal wall (ICW), canal wall down (CWD) and non mastoidectomy (P < 0.001). The longer the dryness duration of the ear, the MERI score was lower. When MERI score is low, the patient doesn’t need mastoidectomy. Also, the worse the opposite ear, the higher the MERI score was. The highest MERI score was in patients undergoing CWD, and the lowest MERI score was in patients undergoing simple tympanoplasty.


MERI score is a useful tool for predicting the success rate of tympanoplasty and helps the surgeon planning the type of tympanoplasty.


Tympanoplasty Chronic otitis media MERI 



This study was supported by Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, IR Iran.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Ethics approval

The research protocol was approved by Shiraz University of Medical Sciences Ethics Committee (ethics committee reference number: IR.SUMS.MED.REC.1394.s75).


  1. 1.
    Flint PW, Haughey BH, Lund VJ, Niparko JK, Robbins KT, Thomas JR, Lesperance MM (2015) Cummings otolaryngology: head and neck surgery. 6 edn. Saunders, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yegin Y, Celik M, Koc AK, Kufeciler L, Elbistanli MS, Kayhan FT (2016) Comparison of temporalis fascia muscle and full-thickness cartilage grafts in type 1 pediatric tympanoplasties. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 82(6):695–701. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kotzias SA, Seerig MM, Mello MFPCd, Chueiri L, Jacques J, Coutinho MB, Zatt DB (2018) Ossicular chain reconstruction in chronic otitis media: hearing results and analysis of prognostic factors. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kartush JM (1994) Ossicular chain reconstruction. Capitulum to malleus. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 27(4):689–715PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pinar E, Sadullahoglu K, Calli C, Oncel S (2008) Evaluation of prognostic factors and middle ear risk index in tympanoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 139(3):386–390. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kumar N, Madkikar NN, Kishve S, Chilke D, Shinde KJ (2012) Using middle ear risk index and et function as parameters for predicting the outcome of tympanoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 64(1):13–16. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Almazrou K, Alqahtani M, Alshehabi M (2013) Middle ear risk index as a prognostic factor in pediatric ossicular reconstruction. Indian J Otol 19(1):23–26. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Felek SA, Celik H, Islam A, Elhan AH, Demirci M, Samim E (2010) Type 2 ossiculoplasty: prognostic determination of hearing results by middle ear risk index. Am J Otolaryngol 31(5):325–331. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Becvarovski Z, Kartush JM (2001) Smoking and tympanoplasty: implications for prognosis and the middle ear risk index (MERI). Laryngoscope 111(10):1806–1811. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Koch WM, Friedman EM, McGill TJ, Healy GB (1990) Tympanoplasty in children. The Boston Children’s Hospital experience. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 116(1):35–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Emir H, Ceylan K, Kizilkaya Z, Gocmen H, Uzunkulaoglu H, Samim E (2007) Success is a matter of experience: type 1 tympanoplasty: influencing factors on type 1 tympanoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 264(6):595–599. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Merenda D, Koike K, Shafiei M, Ramadan H (2007) Tympanometric volume: a predictor of success of tympanoplasty in children. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 136(2):189–192. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Singh GB, Sidhu TS, Sharma A, Singh N (2005) Tympanoplasty type I in children–an evaluative study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 69(8):1071–1076. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Denoyelle F, Roger G, Chauvin P, Garabedian EN (1999) Myringoplasty in children: predictive factors of outcome. Laryngoscope 109(1):47–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Albera R, Ferrero V, Lacilla M, Canale A (2006) Tympanic reperforation in myringoplasty: evaluation of prognostic factors. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 115(12):875–879. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Onal K, Uguz MZ, Kazikdas KC, Gursoy ST, Gokce H (2005) A multivariate analysis of otological, surgical and patient-related factors in determining success in myringoplasty. Clin Otolaryngol 30(2):115–120. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Collins WO, Telischi FF, Balkany TJ, Buchman CA (2003) Pediatric tympanoplasty: effect of contralateral ear status on outcomes. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 129(6):646–651. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Otolaryngology Research CenterShiraz University of Medical SciencesShirazIran
  2. 2.Zahedan University of Medical SciencesZahedanIran

Personalised recommendations