Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Inlay triple- “C” tympanoplasty: a comparative study for its use in large, marginal perforations

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

A Correction to this article was published on 17 November 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

Objective and intervention

To compare the efficacy of the inlay, composite chondroperichondrial clip (triple-C) tympanoplasty with conventional underlay cartilage island tympanoplasty, and to evaluate its efficacy in treating large, marginal perforations.

Study design

The study involved 183 patients that were selected from a retrospective chart review of tympanoplasties performed at our center from March 2016 to June 2018.

Setting

A tertiary referral center hospital.

Patients

65 patients underwent inlay, triple-C cartilage tympanoplasty (inlay group) and 118 underwent underlay cartilage island tympanoplasty (underlay group).

Main outcome measures

Postoperative anatomical success rate, surgical time, hearing outcomes, and complications were analyzed. Focused analysis was performed on large or marginal perforations.

Results

Both groups exhibited similar characteristics in demographic distribution, general health status, preoperative anatomical and hearing disabilities. Excellent results were achieved in both groups. Re-perforation occurred for 9.2% of the inlay group and 7.6% of the underlay group (p = 0.71). Hearing improvement was significant in both groups. Within the separate groups, 36% of underlay patients and 60% of inlay patients improved to achieve closure of the air–bone gap (ABG) to less than 10 dB (p = 0.1). In large or marginal perforations, both groups performed similarly. No significant complications were seen in this cohort. Nevertheless, a significant reduction in surgical time was observed in the inlay group (38 min. vs 58 min.; p = 0.0004).

Conclusion

Inlay triple-C tympanoplasty is comparable to conventional underlay cartilage island tympanoplasty in both anatomical and audiological success rates, even for large, marginal perforations. Due to its shorter operation time, inlay triple-C tympanoplasty should be considered a good surgical option for all tympanic membrane perforations.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  1. Zöllner F (1955) The principles of plastic surgery of the sound-conducting apparatus. J Laryngol Otol 69(10):637–652. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215100051240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wullstein H (1956) Theory and practice of tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope 66(8):1076–1093. https://doi.org/10.1288/00005537-195608000-00008

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nissen AJ, Nissen RL, Yonkers AJ (1986) A historical review of the use of bone and cartilage in otologic surgery. Ear Nose Throat J 65(11):493–496

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mudry A (2008) History of myringoplasty and tympanoplasty type I. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 139(5):613–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2008.07.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sarkar S (2013) A review on the history of tympanoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 65:S455–S460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-012-0534-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hermann H (1960) Tympanic membrane plastic with temporalis fascia [in German]. Hals Nas Ohrenh 9:136

    Google Scholar 

  7. Wehrs RE (1999) Grafting techniques. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 32(3):443–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0030-6665(05)70144-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dornhoffer J (2003) Cartilage tympanoplasty: indications, techniques, and outcomes in a 1,000-patient series. Laryngoscope 113(11):1844–1856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jalali MM, Motasaddi M, Kouhi A, Dabiri S, Soleimani R (2017) Comparison of cartilage with temporalis fascia tympanoplasty: a meta-analysis of comparative studies. Laryngoscope 127(9):2139–2148. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.26451

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Austin FD, Shea JJ (1961) A new system of tympanoplasty using vein graft. Laryngoscope 71(6):596–611. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.5540710602

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. House LR (1958) Clinical experiences in tympanoplasty; results in sixty-one cases. Laryngoscope 68(8):1481–1489

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Eavey RD (1998) Inlay tympanoplasty: cartilage butterfly technique. Laryngoscope 108(5):657–661. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005537-199805000-00006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kim MB, Park JA, Suh MJ, Song CIl (2019) Comparison of clinical outcomes between butterfly inlay cartilage tympanoplasty and conventional underlay cartilage tympanoplasty. Auris Nasus Larynx 46(2):167–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anl.2018.07.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ghanem MA, Monroy A, Alizade FS, Nicolau Y, Eavey RD (2006) Butterfly cartilage graft inlay tympanoplasty for large perforations. Laryngoscope 116(10):1813–1816. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlg.0000231742.11048.ed

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Alain H, Esmat NH, Ohad H, Yona V, Nageris BI (2016) Butterfly myringoplasty for total, subtotal, and annular perforations. Laryngoscope 126(11):2565–2568. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.25904

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Haksever M, Akduman D, Solmaz F, Gündoğdu E (2015) Inlay butterfly cartilage tympanoplasty in the treatment of dry central perforated chronic otitis media as an effective and time-saving procedure. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 272(4):867–872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-014-2889-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hod R, Buda I, Hazan A, Nageris BI (2013) Inlay butterfly cartilage tympanoplasty. Am J Otolaryngol 34(1):41–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2012.08.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee SA, Kang HT, Lee YJ, Kim BG, Lee JD (2011) Microscopic versus endoscopic inlay butterfly cartilage tympanoplasty. J Audiol Otol 2019(23):140–144. https://doi.org/10.7874/jao.2018.00549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fernandes SV (2003) Composite chondroperichondrial clip tympanoplasty: the triple “C” technique. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 128(2):267–272. https://doi.org/10.1067/mhn.2003.88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Demirhan H, Yiǧit O, Hamit B, Çakir M (2018) Endoscopic triple-C tympanoplasty: an alternative approach to anteriorly located tympanic membrane repair. J Laryngol Otol 132(11):1007–1009. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215118001937

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gozeler MS, Sahin A (2019) Comparison of temporalis fascia and transcanal composite chondroperichondrial tympanoplasty techniques. Ear Nose Throat J 23:014556131987566. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145561319875663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Otte GJ (1973) INVESTIGACION DE ALGUNOS PROBLEMAS DE LA OTITIS MEDIA CRONICA EN CHILE [in Spanish]. Rev Otorrinolaringol Cir Cabeza Cuello 33(1):1–21

    Google Scholar 

  23. Visvanathan V, Vallamkondu V, Bhimrao SK (2018) Achieving a successful closure of an anterior tympanic membrane perforation: evidence-based systematic review. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 158(6):1011–1015. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599818764335

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kalcioglu MT, Tuysuz O, Yalcın MZ, Karatas E (2019) Does cartilage thickness affect hearing results in real life? long-term results of cartilage and fascia graft in type 1 tympanoplasty. Clin Otolaryngol. https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.13383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Soy FK, Kulduk E, Dundar R et al (2017) Boomerang-shaped vs. shield-shaped chondroperichondrial cartilage grafts for type 1 tympanoplasty in children: a study of 121 patients. Ear Nose Throat J 96(10–11):419–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145561317096010-1121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ahmed S, Raza N, Ullah S, Shabbir A (2013) Chondroperichondrial clip myringoplasty: a new technique for closure of tympanic membrane perforations. J Laryngol Otol 127(6):562–567. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215113000595

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Nemade SV, Shinde KJ, Sampate PB (2018) Comparison between clinical and audiological results of tympanoplasty with double layer graft (modified sandwich fascia) technique and single layer graft (underlay fascia and underlay cartilage) technique. Auris Nasus Larynx 45(3):440–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anl.2017.08.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Neudert M, Zahnert T (2017) Tympanoplasty-news and new perspectives. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 07:1–21

    Google Scholar 

  29. Rosenfeld RM, Schwartz SR, Pynnonen MA et al (2013) Clinical practice guideline: tympanostomy tubes in children. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 149(1 Suppl):S1-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599813487302

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Nemade SV, Shinde KJ, Naik CS, Qadri H (2018) Comparison between clinical and audiological results of tympanoplasty with modified sandwich technique and underlay technique. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 84(3):318–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjorl.2017.03.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Jiang Z, Lou Z, Lou Z (2017) Impact of the nature of the temporalis fascia graft on the outcome of type i underlay tympanoplasty. J Laryngol Otol 131(6):472–475. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215117000615

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, The Head and Neck Center, Rappaport Institute of Medicine and Research, Rambam Healthcare Campus, The Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel

    Mauricio Cohen-Vaizer & Shadi Shinnawi

  2. Technion School of Medicine, Haifa, Israel

    Mauricio Cohen-Vaizer & Roni Barzilai

  3. The Laboratory for Applied Cancer Research, Clinical Research Institute at Rambam, Rappaport Institute of Medicine and Research, Rambam Healthcare Campus, The Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel

    Shadi Shinnawi

Authors
  1. Mauricio Cohen-Vaizer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roni Barzilai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shadi Shinnawi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mauricio Cohen-Vaizer.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

The original online version of this article was revised due to the last author's name was published incorrectly and corrected in this version.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cohen-Vaizer, M., Barzilai, R. & Shinnawi, S. Inlay triple- “C” tympanoplasty: a comparative study for its use in large, marginal perforations. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 278, 3715–3722 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06439-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06439-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation