Skip to main content
Log in

Comparative Study of Endoscope Assisted Myringoplasty and Microscopic Myringoplasty

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To study and compare the outcomes of the endoscopic versus microscopic approach to Myringoplasty in 60 patients. In this prospective study, the outcomes of 60 ears of 60 patients (40 male and 20 female) who underwent Myringoplasty were evaluated. The age range of the patients was 15–55 years. Group 1 underwent Myringoplasty with an endoscopic technique (n = 30), and Group 2 underwent Myringoplasty with the conventional microscopic technique (n = 30). A temporalis fascia graft was used in both groups. The outcomes were analyzed in terms of the hearing gain, duration of surgery, graft success rate and advantages and disadvantages of endoscopic versus microscopic approach to Myringoplasty. In both groups, the postoperative air-bone gap (ABG) was significantly lower than the preoperative ABG. There were no significant differences between the preoperative and postoperative ABG values (in dB) in either group. The mean operative duration in Group 1 (96.32 min) was significantly lower than that in Group 2 (136.09 min). In the preoperative evaluation of patients in Group 1 had small, medium, large perforations are 16 (53 %), 12 (40 %), and 02 (7 %), respectively. In Group 2, had small, medium, large perforations are 12 (40 %), 15 (50 %), and 03 (10 %), respectively. Perforations (wet ear) were detected in 10 (33 %), 06 (20 %), and 04 (12 %) of the patients in Group 1 at postoperative months 1, 3, and 6, respectively. Perforations (wet ear) were detected 09 (30 %), 06 (20 %) and 03 (10 %) patients in Group 2 at postoperative months 1, 3, and 6. At 6 months postoperatively, there were smaller perforations and reduced rate of perforations as compared to 1st and 3rd month in Group 1 and Group 2. The difference between the perforation conditions (larger vs. smaller) was not significant in either group. The preoperative and postoperative increases in the ABG were associated. At the end of 6 months all (100 %) patients in the Group 1 rated their cosmetic result as excellent as compared in the Group 2. Unlike the microscope, the endoscope is easily transportable and hence is ideal for use in ear surgery camps conducted in remote places. In patients undergoing Myringoplasty, especially if the external ear canal is narrow and the anterior canal wall is prominent, the endoscopic and microscopic approaches appear to give equal results in terms of easy visualization of the entire tympanic membrane and no requirement for extra intervention to evaluate the ossicular system. A shorter operative duration and excellent cosmetic result is an advantage of the endoscopic Myringoplasty technique.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Glasscock ME (1973) Tympanic membrane grafting with fascia; overlay vs. undersurface technique. Laryngoscope 83(5):754–770

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wullstein H (1956) The restoration of the function of the middle ear, in chronic otitis media. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 65:1020–1041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Raj A, Meher R (2001) Endoscopic transcanal myringoplasty—a study. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 53(1):47–49

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Wullstien H (1953) Technic and early results of tympanoplasty. Monatsschr Ohrenheilkd Laryngorhinol 87(4):308–311

    Google Scholar 

  6. Raj A, Meher R (2001) Endoscopic transcanal myringoplasty—a study. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 53:47–49

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. El-Guindy A (1992) Endoscopic transcanal myringoplasty. J Laryngol Otol 106:493–495

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Usami S, Iijima N, Fujita S et al (2001) Endoscope-assisted myringoplasty. Otorhinolaryngology 63:287–290

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Patil RN (2003) Endoscopic tympanoplasty—definitely advantageous (preliminary reports). Asian J Ear Nose Throat 25:9–13

    Google Scholar 

  11. Rosenberg SI (1996) Endoscopic otologic surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 29:291–300

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Karhuketo TS, Ilomaki JH, Puhakka HJ (2001) Tympanoscope-assisted myringoplasty. Otorhinolaryngology 63:353–358

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Jadav SP et al (2009) Endoscope assisted myringoplasty. Singap Med J 50(5):510

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Sudarshan Reddy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors of this article declare that he/she has no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights

Animals were not involved in this study.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional 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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lakpathi, G., Sudarshan Reddy, L. & Anand Comparative Study of Endoscope Assisted Myringoplasty and Microscopic Myringoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 68, 185–190 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-016-0970-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-016-0970-8

Keywords

Navigation