Skip to main content

Formaldehyde-treated temporofascial graft versus cartilage graft in repairing failed tympanic membrane grafting

Abstract

Aim

The aim of this study was to compare the anatomical and functional outcomes of grafting the tympanic membrane (TM) – that is, previously failed grafting – by two graft materials: the first was formaldehyde-treated temporalis fascia graft (FTFG) and the second was tragal cartilage composite graft. Graft-take, hearing results, and complications were compared.

Patients and methods

The present study included 36 patients with chronic suppurative otitis media with recurrent TM perforation. Nineteen patients received tragal cartilage graft, and 17 patients received the FTFG. For each patient, history taking and complete general and ENT examinations were performed. Graft-take, preoperative and postoperative pure tone average, air–bone gap, and tympanometry scores were calculated and compared.

Statistical analysis

Data entry and data analysis were carried out using statistical package for social science version 19.

Results and conclusion

The present study showed that for repairing TM grafting, cartilage graft and FTFG were comparable in both graft-take and hearing results. The FTFG reflected the true configuration of tympanometry. It can be used in cases where the cartilage graft is previously consumed.

References

  1. 1

    Dabholkar JP, Vora K, Sikdar A. Comparative study of underlay tympanoplasty with temporalis fascia and tragal perichondrium. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007; 59:116–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Indorewala S. Dimensional stability of free fascia grafts: clinical application. Laryngoscope 2005; 115:278–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Yetişer S, Tosun F, Satar B. Revision myringoplasty with solvent-dehydrated human dura mater (Tutoplast). Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001; 124:518–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Attallah M. Revision tympanoplasty: surgical findings and results in Riyadh. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 1996; 58:36–38.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    MacDonald RR, Lusk RP, Muntz HR. Fasciaform myringoplasty in children. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1994; 120:138–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Dokuzlar U, Kasapoglu F, Demirci U, Onart S. The effect of treatment of temporalis muscle fascia grafts with formaldehyde on the success rates of tympanoplasty. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg 2011; 21:86–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Heermann J. Autograft tragal and conchal palisade cartilage and perichondrium in tympanomastoid reconstruction. Ear Nose Throat J 1992; 71:344–349.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Reddy R. Comparative study of results of cartilage-perichondrium vs. temporalis fascia grafting in active tubotympanic type of chronic suppurative otitis media. J Evol Med Dent Sci 2014; 3:6714–6720.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Moore GF. Candidate’s thesis: revision tympanoplasty utilizing fossa triangularis cartilage. Laryngoscope 2002; 112:1543–1554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Boronat-Echeverría NE, Reyes-García E, Sevilla-Delgado Y, Aguirre-Mariscal H, Mejía-Aranguré JM. Prognostic factors of successful tympanoplasty in pediatric patients: a cohort study. BMC Pediatr2012; 12:67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Yegin Y, Celik M, Koc AK, Kufeciler L, Elbistanli MS, Kayhan FT. Comparison of temporalis fascia muscle and full-thickness cartilage grafts in type 1 pediatric tympanoplasties. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2016; 82:695–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Hough JV. Revision tympanoplasty including anterior perforations and lateralization of grafts. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2006; 39:661–675.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Sismanis A, Dodson K, Kyrodimos E. Cartilage ‘shield’ grafts in revision tympanoplasty. Otol Neurotol 2008; 29:330–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Djalilian HR. Revision tympanoplasty using scartissue graft. Otol Neurotol 2006; 27:131–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Suzuki H, Koizumi H, Kitamura T, Tabata T, Kise Y, Hashida K. Revision myringoplasty using thin-sliced cartilage for postoperative reperforation in patients with chronic otitis media. J UOEH 2016; 38:237–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Altuna X, Navarro JJ, Algaba J. Island cartilage tympanoplasty in revision cases: anatomic and functional results. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2012; 269:2169–2172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Perkins R, Bui HT. Tympanic membrane reconstruction using formaldehyde-formed autogenous temporalis fascia: twenty years’ experience. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1996; 114:366–379.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Iacovou E, Vlastarakos PV, Papacharalampous G, Kyrodimos E, Nikolopoulos TP. Is cartilage better than temporalis muscle fascia in type I tympanoplasty? Implications for current surgical practice. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2013; 270:2803–2813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rowaa A. Ahmad MSc.

Additional information

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

Rights and permissions

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ramadan, M.O., Abd-Algaleel, A.A.A. & Ahmad, R.A. Formaldehyde-treated temporofascial graft versus cartilage graft in repairing failed tympanic membrane grafting. Egypt J Otolaryngol 33, 626–630 (2017). https://doi.org/10.4103/ejo.ejo_29_17

Download citation

Keywords

  • cartilage graft
  • failed grafting
  • formaldehyde-treated temporalis fascia