Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Endoscopic single versus double flap tympanoplasty: a randomized clinical trial

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

A Letter to the Editor to this article was published on 09 November 2020

Abstract

Objective

This study aims to compare the results of endoscopic over–underlay tympanoplasty, single flap technique, with endoscopic over–underlay tympanoplasty combined with an anterior tab, double flap technique, in repair of the challenging total and subtotal tympanic membrane perforations with inadequate anterior remnant. This is to determine whether highly adequate visualization at the anterior meatal angle area offered by endoscopy can eliminate the need for anterior tab reinforcement.

Subjects and methods

A prospective randomized single-blinded study involving 104 patients with total or subtotal tympanic membrane perforations was conducted. Patients were randomized into two groups: 52 with endoscopic single flap tympanoplasty, first group, and 52 with endoscopic double flap tympanoplasty, second group, between August 2017 and February 2019. The main outcome is graft take rate. Secondary outcomes include hearing results, pain score assessment, operative time and postoperative complications.

Results

Graft take rates were 94% and 98% for the first and second groups, respectively (P value = 0.307). Significant improvement was achieved in total air–bone gap from 21.45 ± 5.37 and 23.1 ± 4.47 preoperatively to 6.4 ± 5.46 and 6.15 ± 3.57 postoperatively for the first and second groups, respectively. Pain scores were not significantly different between the two groups. Mean operative time was significantly longer in the second group (P value = 0.010). There was no reported lateralization or anterior blunting in both groups.

Conclusion

In repair of total and subtotal tympanic membrane perforations with inadequate anterior remnant, endoscopic enrollment provides excellent visualization and good manipulation at the anterior meatal angle area with favorable results, eliminating the need for adding an anterior tab and alleviating the burden of longer operative time.

Clinical trial registry

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03922295) “retrospectively registered” at 18/4/2019.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Prakash MD, Abhilasha S (2018) The role of anterior tucking of graft in subtotal perforation of tympanic membrane. Intern J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 4(3):759–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Sengupta A, Basak B, Ghosh D, Basu D, Adhikari D, Maity K (2012) A study on outcome of underlay, overlay and combined techniques of myringoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 64(1):63–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Fayad JN, Sheehy J (2009) Tympanoplasty—outer surface grafting technique. Otologic Surgery E-Book: with Video, Expert Consult-Online and Print: 119

  4. Wick CC, Arnaoutakis D, Kaul VF, Isaacson B (2017) Endoscopic lateral cartilage graft tympanoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 157(4):683–689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Peng R, Lalwani AK (2013) Efficacy of “hammock” tympanoplasty in the treatment of anterior perforations. The Laryngoscope 123(5):1236–1240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Harris JP, Wong Y-T, Yang T-H, Miller M (2016) How I do it: anterior pull-through tympanoplasty for anterior eardrum perforations. Acta Otolaryngol 136(4):414–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Primrose W, Kerr A (1986) The anterior marginal perforation. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 11(3):175–176

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. D'Eredità R, Lens MB (2009) Anterior tab flap versus standard underlay myringoplasty in children. Otolog Neurotol 30(6):777–781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hosamani P, Ananth L, Medikeri S (2012) Comparative study of efficacy of graft placement with and without anterior tagging in type one tympanoplasty for mucosal-type chronic otitis media. J Laryngol Otol 126(2):125–130

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Plodpai Y (2018) Endoscopic vs microscopic overlay tympanoplasty for correcting large tympanic membrane perforations: a randomized clinical trial. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 159(5):879–886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Saliba I (2008) Hyaluronic acid fat graft myringoplasty: how we do it. Clin Otolaryngol 33(6):610–614

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kartush JM (1994) Ossicular chain reconstruction. Capitulum to malleus. Otolaryngol Clin N Am 27(4):689–715

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Eliades SJ, Limb CJ (2013) The role of mastoidectomy in outcomes following tympanic membrane repair: a review. Laryngoscope 123(7):1787–1802. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.23752

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ohki M, Kikuchi S, Tanaka S (2019) Endoscopic type 1 tympanoplasty in chronic otitis media: comparative study with a postauricular microscopic approach. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Off J Am Acad Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 161:315–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599819838778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sakai M (1994) Proposal of a guideline in reporting hearing results in middle ear and mastoid surgery. Am J Otol 15(3):291–293

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Schuknecht HF (1976) Myringoplasty. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1(1):53–65

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Alzoubi FQ, Tarifi AA, Khader Y, de Carpentier J (2010) Comparison between transtympanic and elevation of tympanomeatal flap approaches in tympanoplasty. Otolog Neurotol Off Publ Am Otolog Soc Am Neurotol Soc Euro Acad Otol Neurotol 31(5):773–775. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181e40a41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ayache S, Tramier B, Strunski V (2008) Otoendoscopy in cholesteatoma surgery of the middle ear: what benefits can be expected? Otol Neurotol 29(8):1085–1090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Migirov L, Shapira Y, Horowitz Z, Wolf M (2011) Exclusive endoscopic ear surgery for acquired cholesteatoma: preliminary results. Otol Neurotol 32(3):433–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Tarabichi M (1999) Endoscopic middle ear surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 108(1):39–46

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Tarabichi M, Ayache S, Nogueira JF, Al Qahtani M, Pothier DD (2013) Endoscopic management of chronic otitis media and tympanoplasty. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 46(2):155–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ayache S (2013) Cartilaginous myringoplasty: the endoscopic transcanal procedure. Euro Arch Otorhinol Laryngol Off J Euro Fed Otol Rhinol Laryngolog Soc Aff German Soc Otol Rhinol Laryngol Head Neck Surg 270(3):853–860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-012-2056-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bennett ML, Zhang D, Labadie RF, Noble JH (2016) Comparison of middle ear visualization with endoscopy and microscopy. Otol Neurotol 37(4):362–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dündar R, Kulduk E, Soy FK, Aslan M, Hanci D, Muluk NB, Cingi C (2014) Endoscopic versus microscopic approach to type 1 tympanoplasty in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 78(7):1084–1089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Furukawa T, Watanabe T, Ito T, Kubota T, Kakehata S (2014) Feasibility and advantages of transcanal endoscopic myringoplasty. Otol Neurotol 35(4):e140–e145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mohindra S, Panda NK (2010) Ear surgery without microscope; is it possible. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 62(2):138–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tseng C-C, Lai M-T, Wu C-C, Yuan S-P, Ding Y-F (2017) Comparison of endoscopic transcanal myringoplasty and endoscopic type I tympanoplasty in repairing medium-sized tympanic perforations. Auris Nasus Larynx 44(6):672–677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kozin ED, Lehmann A, Carter M, Hight E, Cohen M, Nakajima HH, Lee DJ (2014) Thermal effects of endoscopy in a human temporal bone model: implications for endoscopic ear surgery. Laryngoscope 124(8):E332–339. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.24666

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Choi N, Noh Y, Park W, Lee JJ, Yook S, Choi JE, Chung W-H, Cho Y-S, Hong SH, Moon IJ (2017) Comparison of endoscopic tympanoplasty to microscopic tympanoplasty. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 10(1):44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Angeli SI, Kulak JL, Guzmán J (2006) Lateral tympanoplasty for total or near-total perforation: prognostic factors. The Laryngoscope 116(9):1594–1599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ryan JE, Briggs RJ (2010) Outcomes of the overlay graft technique in tympanoplasty. ANZ J Surg 80(9):624–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kartush JM, Michaelides EM, Becvarovski Z, LaRouere MJ (2002) Over-under tympanoplasty. The Laryngoscope 112(5):802–807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Friedman RA, Hansen MR (2004) Overlay tympanoplasty. Middle ear and mastoid surgery. Thieme, New York, pp 22–28

    Google Scholar 

  35. Gerlinger I, Ráth G, Szanyi I, Pytel J (2006) Myringoplasty for anterior and subtotal perforations using KTP-532 laser. Euro Arch Otol Rhinol Laryngol Head Neck 263(9):816–819

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Jackson CG, Kaylie DM, Glasscock III ME, Strasnick B (2010) Tympanoplasty—undersurface graft technique: postauricular approach. In: Otologic surgery. Elsevier, The Netherlands, pp 149–160

  37. Nardone M, Sommerville R, Bowman J, Danesi G (2012) Myringoplasty in simple chronic otitis media: critical analysis of long-term results in a 1,000-adult patient series. Otol Neurotol 33(1):48–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sergi B, Galli J, De Corso E, Parrilla C, Paludetti G (2011) Overlay versus underlay myringoplasty: report of outcomes considering closure of perforation and hearing function. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 31(6):366

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Singh M, Rai A, Bandyopadhyay S, Gupta S (2003) Comparative study of the underlay and overlay techniques of myringoplasty in large and subtotal perforations of the tympanic membrane. J Laryngol Otol 117(6):444–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Stage J, Bak-Pedersen K (1992) Underlay tympanoplasty with the graft lateral to the malleus handle. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 17(1):6–9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Kang HS, Ahn SK, Jeon SY, Hur DG, Kim JP, Park JJ, Kim DW, Woo SH (2012) Sensation recovery of auricle following chronic ear surgery by retroauricular incision. Euro Arch Otol Rhinol Laryngol Off J Euro Fed Otol Rhinol Laryngolog Soc Aff German Soc Otol Rhinol Laryngol Head Neck Surg 269(1):101–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-011-1638-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Frampton SJ, Pringle M (2011) Cutaneous sensory deficit following post-auricular incision. J Laryngol Otol 125(10):1014–1019. https://doi.org/10.1017/s002221511100199x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Harugop A, Mudhol R, Godhi R (2008) A comparative study of endoscope assisted myringoplasty and micrsoscope assisted myringoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 60(4):298–302

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, El-Gomhoria Street, Dakahlia Governorate, Mansoura, 35516, Egypt

    Noha Ahmed El-Kholy, Mohammed Abdelbadie Salem & Abdelwahab Mohamed Rakha

Authors
  1. Noha Ahmed El-Kholy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohammed Abdelbadie Salem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Abdelwahab Mohamed Rakha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Noha Ahmed El-Kholy: collection, analysis, interpretation of data, drafting, revising and final approval of the manuscript. Mohammed Abdelbadie Salem: conception and design of the study, performing the surgical intervention, interpretation of data, revising and final approval of the manuscript. Abdelwahab Mohamed Rakha: design and supervision of the study, interpretation of data, revising and final approval of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Noha Ahmed El-Kholy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None to declare.

Ethical approval

Approval of institutional review board of Mansoura University, Faculty of Medicine (code: MS/17.07.100) was obtained. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was adhered to with registration at the Clinical Trials Registry (NCT03922295).

Informed consent

All patients signed a written informed consent prior to surgery.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

El-Kholy, N.A., Salem, M.A. & Rakha, A.M. Endoscopic single versus double flap tympanoplasty: a randomized clinical trial. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 278, 1395–1401 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06212-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06212-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation