Skip to main content
The Egyptian Journal of Otolaryngology
Download PDF
  • Original article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Impact of site and size of pars tensa tympanic membrane perforation on the success rate of myringoplasty

The Egyptian Journal of Otolaryngology volume 35, pages 339–346 (2019)Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

This article is intended to investigate the impact of size and site of tympanic membrane (TM) perforation on the outcome and success rate of myringoplasty.

Patients and methods

This prospective study was conducted at Assiut University Hospital, between September 2015 and November 2017. Video-otoscopy was done to all cases, the images were registered on the computer and analyzed by using Universal Desktop Ruler V.3.5.3364 program, as the area of TM perforation (P) and the entire area of TM (T) were calculated. Thereafter, the percentage area of the perforation (P/T×100%) for the perforated ear was revealed. Site of perforation was also authenticated. Preoperative and postoperative A–B gap was carried out through audiogram for hearing results.

Results

The overall success rate of myringoplasty was 78.8%. According to size of TM perforation; the highest success rate of myringoplasty established between small perforations was 93.3% and the lowest found between subtotal perforations was 42.9%; in medium and large perforations, the success rate of myringoplasty was 87.5 and 71.4%, respectively. As regards the site of TM perforation, the success rate of myringoplasty was highest (90%) for posterior perforations and lowest (70%) for anterior perforations; in central and inferior perforations, the success rate of myringoplasty was 79.8 and 75%, respectively. After myringoplasty, the amount of closure of A–B gap was 21.82 dB.

Conclusion

The size of TM perforation has a great influence on the success rate of myringoplasty, while the site of TM perforation has no impact on the success rate of myringoplasty, and myringoplasty is an effective operation for sealing off TM perforations, resulting in improvement of quality of life.

References

  1. Voss SE, Nakajima HH, Huber AM, Shera CA. Function and acoustics of the normal and diseased middle ear. New York, NY: The Middle Ear Springer 2013. pp. 67–91.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Das A, Sen B, Ghosh D, Sengupta A. Myringoplasty: impact of size and site of perforation on the success rate. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015; 67:185–189.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bluestone CD. Myringoplasty and tympanoplasty. I: Rosenfeld RM, Bluestone CD. Evidence based otitis media. 2nd ed. USA: BC Decker Inc. 1999. pp. 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  4. George GB. Chronic otitis media; Scott Brown’s otorhinolaryngology, head and neck surgery. I: Gleeson M, Arnold H. editors. 7th ed. London: CRC Press 2008. pp. 3385–3388. DOI: 10.1201/b15118-279

    Google Scholar 

  5. Silviu A, Gregorio B, Franco T. Prognostic factors in tympanoplasty. Am J Otol 1998; 19:136–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sergi B, Galli J, De Corso E, Parrilla C, Paludetti G. Overlay versus underlay myringoplasty: report of outcomes considering closure of perforation and hearing function. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2011; 31:366–371.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Inwood JL, Wallace HC, Clarke SE. Endaural or postaural incision for myringoplasty: does it make a difference to the patient?. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2003; 28:396–398.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mehta RP, Rosowski JJ, Voss SE, O’Neil E, Merchant SN. Determinants of hearing loss in perforations of the tympanic membrane. Otol Neurotol 2006; 27:136–143.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Jones WS. Video otoscopy: bringing otoscopy out of the ‘black box’. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2006; 70:1875–1883.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hsu CY, Chen YS, Hwang JH, Liu TC. A computer program to calculate the size of tympanic membrane perforations. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2004; 29:340–342.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Niculescu B, Vesa D, Tomescu E. Influence of perforation characteristics of the tympanic membrane on hearing loss. Analele universitatii “Dunarea de Jos” galati medicina, fascicula 2011; 2:70–76.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium. Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium guidelines for the evaluation of results of treatment of conductive hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995; 113:186–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sangavi AK. Assessment of hearing improvement by myringoplasty. J Sci Innovat Res 2015; 4:67–70.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Mills R, Thiel G, Mills N. Results of myringoplasty operations in active and inactive ears in adults. Laryngoscope 2013; 123:2245–2249.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Feroze KK, Rejee RE, Sajilal SM. Assessment of factors affecting the outcome of Myringoplasty and type 1 tympanoplasty. Int J Biomed Res 2014; 5:340–343.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Wasson JD, Papadimitriou CE, Pau H. Myringoplasty: impact of perforation size on closure and audiological improvement. J Laryngol Otol 2009; 123:973–977.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee P, Kelly G, Mills RP. Myringoplasty: does the size of the perforation matter? 1. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2002; 27:331–334.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jurado FJ, Gil JL, Secall MT, Vadillo ED, Palau EM, Novoa MD, Massana EF. Myringoplasty: auditory follow-up and study of prognostic factors. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 2009; 60:169–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Biswas SS, Hossain MA, Alam MM, Atiq MT, Al-Amin Z. Hearing evaluation after myringoplasty. Bangladesh J Otorhinolaryngol 2010; 16:23–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Awan Z, Bashir H, Hussain A. Myringoplasty: a comparative study of different graft materials and various surgical techniques. Ann Pak Inst Med Sci 2008; 4:209–211.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gersdorff M, Garin P, Decat M, Juantegui M. Myringoplasty: long-term results in adults and children. Am J Otol 1995; 16:532–535.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Vartiainen E, Nuutinen J. Success and pitfalls in myringoplasty: follow-up study of 404 cases. Am J Otol 1993; 14:301–305.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Yung MW. Myringoplasty for subtotal perforation. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 1995; 20:241–245.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Black JH, Hickey SA, Wormald PJ. An analysis of the results of myringoplasty in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 1995; 31:95–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Denoyelle F, Roger G, Chauvin P, Garabedian EN. Myringoplasty in children: predictive factors of outcome. Laryngoscope 1999; 109:47–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Singh GB, Sidhu TS, Sharma A, Singh N. Tympanoplasty type I in children − an evaluative study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2005; 69:1071–1076.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lima JC, Marone SA, Martucci O, Gonçalez F, Silva Neto JJ, Ramos AC. Evaluation of the organic and functional results of tympanoplasties through a retro-auricular approach at a medical residency unit. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2011; 77:229–236.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Merenda D, Koike K, Shafiei M, Ramadan H. Tympanometric volume: a predictor of success of tympanoplasty in children. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007; 136:189–192.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ordóñez-Ordóñez LE, Angulo-Martínez ES, Prieto-Rivera JA, Almario- Chaparro JE, Guzmán-Durán JE, Lora-Falquez JG. Risk factors leading to failure in myringoplasty: a case-control study. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 2008; 59:176–182.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bhat NA, De R. Retrospective analysis of surgical outcome, symptom changes, and hearing improvement following myringoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000; 29:229.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Alsarhan HW, Dawood MR, Jwery AA, Khammas AH, Hamad AK. Assessment of hearing loss in tympanic membrane perforation. Advanced Arab Academy of Audio-Vestibulogy Journal 2016; 3:16.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rafique M, Farrukh MS, Shaikh AA. Assessment of hearing loss in tympanic membrane perforation at tertiary care hospitals. JLUMHS 2014; 13:32–36.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Park H, Hong SN, Kim HS, Han JJ, Chung J, Seo MW, et al. Determinants of conductive hearing loss in tympanic membrane perforation. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 2015; 8:92.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kumar N, Chilke D, Puttewar MP. Clinical profile of tubotympanic CSOM and its management with special reference to site and size of tympanic membrane perforation, eustachian tube function and three flap tympanoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012; 64:5–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ribeiro FD, Gaudino VR, Pinheiro CD, Marçal GJ, Mitre EI. Objective comparison between perforation and hearing loss. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2014; 80:386–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Malik S, Ashrafi K, Sohail Z, Afaq S, Nawaz A. Determinants of variable hearing loss in patients with chronic suppurative otitis media. Pak J Otolaryngol 2012; 28:45–47.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Nahata V, Patil CY, Patil RK, Gattani G, Disawal A, Roy A. Tympanic membrane perforation: its correlation with hearing loss and frequency affected − an analytical study. Indian J Otol 2014; 20:10.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Pannu KK, Chadha S, Kumar D. Evaluation of hearing loss in tympanic membrane perforation. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2011; 63:208–213.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Shrestha S, Sinha BK. Hearing results after myringoplasty. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ) 2006; 4:455–459.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University, Assiut, 71515, Egypt

    Ezzat M. Saleh & Mohammed A. M. Salem MD

  2. Department of Otolaryngology, El-Eman Hospital, Assiut, Egypt

    Suzan H. A. Nemr

Authors
  1. Ezzat M. Saleh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohammed A. M. Salem MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Suzan H. A. Nemr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammed A. M. Salem MD.

Additional information

This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given 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

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Saleh, E.M., Salem, M.A.M. & Nemr, S.H.A. Impact of site and size of pars tensa tympanic membrane perforation on the success rate of myringoplasty. Egypt J Otolaryngol 35, 339–346 (2019). https://doi.org/10.4103/ejo.ejo_69_18

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/ejo.ejo_69_18

Keywords