Table 6 Review of different prognostic factors [4, 5, 17]
Factor | Yes | No | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
1. Age | Sarkar, 2009 [3] Berger, 1997 [7] Adkins, 2005 | Sarkar, 2009 [3] Berger, 1997 [7] Podoshin, 1996 Glasscock, 1973 [6] Albera, 2006 [5] | -Mixed opinion, -Age does not matter -Extreme ages has poor outcome (very young and very old) |
2. Size | Adkins, 2005 Lee, 2002 [9] Denoyele, 1999 | Singh, 2005 [17] Pignataro, 2001 [18] | -Mixed opinion size does not matter -<50% better than >50% perforation |
3. Site of perforation | Lee, 2002 [9] Lin, 2008 [4] | Singh, 2005 [17] Pignataro, 2001 [18] | -Mixed opinion, site does not matter -Anterior perforation technical difficult (worse outcome) -Posterior/inferior better outcome |
4. Middle ear status Wet/dry | Uyar, 2006 [20] Tos, 1986 Albu, 1998 [15] | Sarkar, 2009 [3] Berger, 1997 [7] Podoshin, 1996 Glasscock, 1973 [6] Lin, 2008 [4] | -Mixed opinion -Dry for <3/12 better -Status wet/dry no effect -Higher take-up in wet ear better |
5. Status of contra lateral Ear | Uyar, 2006 [20] Ophir, 1987 [11] Koch, 1990 [12] Sarkar, 2009 [3] Lin, 2008 [4] | Chandrasekhar, 1995 [13] Vartiainen, 1997 [21] Sarkar, 2009 [3] Lin, 2008 [4] | -Mixed opinion -Status plays no role bilateral Myringoplasty performed successfully |
6. Graft material | Lin, 2008 [4] | -Worse outcome with temporalis fascia | |
7. Income status | Onal, 2005 | -Higher income better success than low income | |
8. Technique onlay/underlay | Lin, 2008 [4] | -Onlay has better success than Underlay | |
9. Anesthesia | Lin, 2008 [4] | -Local anesthesia has worse prognosis | |
10. Surgical approach | Lin, 2008 [4] | -Post/RetroAuricular has a better success rate | |
11. Eustacian Tube status | Lin, 2008 [4] | -Difficult to assess Eustachian Tube function and make a comment | |
12. Smoke | Onal, 2005 Becvarovski, 2001 | -Affect healing of the graft (vascularity) -Induces cough which may displace the graft during recovery period | |
13. Surgeon | Onal, 2005 | Senior/experienced surgeon better success |