Outcome of Hearing Improvement in Myringoplasty A Study of Fifty One Sudanese Patients
International Journal of Otorhinolaryngology
Volume 1, Issue 1, September 2015, Pages: 5-8
Received: Sep. 1, 2015; Accepted: Sep. 14, 2015; Published: Sep. 14, 2015
Views 4975      Downloads 142
Rasha A., ENT Consultant in Omdurman Friendship Hospital, Omdurman, Sudan
Ahmed SAO, Omdurman Islamic University, Khartoum, Sudan
Article Tools
Follow on us
Myringoplasty is a reconstructive operation of the tympanic membrane to prevent recurrent ear infection and improve the hearing. Objective: to assess the hearing improvement after myringoplasty and factors that might affect the outcome. Patients and methods: Fifty one patients who had undergone myringoplasty were taken on this prospective study. They were subjected to clinical and audiological examination by a questionnaire, and the results of pure tone audiogram were analyzed. Results: Most of the patients (51 %) were in the age group 0-20 years. Male to female ratio was 1:1.12. The common cause of perforation was chronic ear infection and its commonest size was subtotal (34 patients=66.7%). Most of the patients had conductive hearing loss (47 patients=92.2 %), while mixed hearing loss was found in 4 patients (7.8%). Postauricular approach was used in18 patients (35.3%) and had higher hearing threshold improvement (94.4%).Underlay technique and temporalis fascia graft both had a higher hearing threshold improvement. The overall hearing threshold improvement was 80.4% and air-bone gap had decreased in 80.4%. Conclusion and recommendations: in this study myringoplasty was mainly performed in young age, had best hearing threshold improvement and better outcome in female, temporalis fascia, underlay technique and postauricular approach. We recommend for further studies conducted with more number of patients and long time follow up after myringoplasty for assessment of hearing improvement.
Chronic ear infection, Myringoplasty, Hearing Improvement
To cite this article
Rasha A., Ahmed SAO, Outcome of Hearing Improvement in Myringoplasty A Study of Fifty One Sudanese Patients, International Journal of Otorhinolaryngology. Vol. 1, No. 1, 2015, pp. 5-8. doi: 10.11648/j.ijo.20150101.12
George G Browning. Chronic otitis media. Scott brown’s Otorhinolaryngology, head and neck surgery 7th edition. 2008; 237: 3421-22.
Frootko NJ. Applying the language of transplant to tympanoplasty. Acta otolaryngology.1985 ;( 39): 377.
Zollner F. The principles of plastic surgery of the sound-conducting apparatus. J Laryngol Otol. 1955; 69: 637.
Zollner F. Panel of myringoplasty. Second workshop on reconstructive middle ear surgery. Arch Otol. 1963; 78:301.
Wullestin H. Theory and practice of tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope. 1956; 66: 1076-95.
Stenfors LE. Treatment of tympanic membrane perforation with hyaluronan in an open pilot study of unselected patients. Acta otolaryngol. 1987; (supp 442): 81-7.
Crovetto De La, Torro M. Myringoplasty in chronic otitis media, comparative analysis of underlay and overlay technique. Acta ltorhinolaryngol ESP. 2000; 51: 101-4.
Shea JJ.Vein graft closure of ear drum perforation. Northwest Med. 1960; 59: 770-2.
Shea JJ. Vein graft closure of eardrum perforations. J Laryngol Otol. 1960; 74: 358.
Black JH, Warmald PJ. Myringoplasty effects on hearing and contributing factors. AFr.Med J 1995; 85(1): 41.
Hussam K. El-KashlanLee A. Harker. Tympanoplasty and ossiculoplasty. Cummings Otolaryngology—Head & Neck Surgery 4th edition. 2005; 136: 1905-06-07.
Yagi H.I. the pattern of diseases of the ears in Sudanese patients. Sudan medical journal, Sudan medical association. 1989; 127(1-4):44-47.
Mohamed Al lackany, Nadia Nassif Sarkis. Functional Results after Myringoplasty and Type 1 Tympanoplasty with the Use of Different Graft Materials. Journal of the Medical Research Institute (JMRI). 2005; 26(4): 369-374.
Wang C et al. Hearing results and an analysis of related impact factors following myringoplasty. Lin Chung Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2008 Jul; 22(13): 577-9.
M. Mohsen et al. Comparative study of the clinical and audiological outcome of myringoplasty using temporalis fascia graft versus tragal cartilage graft. Al-Azhar- Assiut Medical Journal, April 2010; 8: 2.
K Snidvongs et al. Outcome of mobile ear surgery units in Thailand. Cambridge Journals, the Journal of Laryngology & Otology. April 2010; 124: 04: 382-386.
Pie/drola Maroto D et al. Functional results in myringoplasties. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2010 Mar-Apr; 61(2): 94-9.
Ahmed El-Guindy et al. Endoscopic transcanal myringoplasty. Cambridge Journals, the Journal of Laryngology & Otology. June 1992; 106(06): 493-495.
Mangal Singh M.S. et al. Comparative study of the underlay and overlay techniques of myringoplasty in large and subtotal perforations of the tympanic membrane. Cambridge Journals, the Journal of Laryngology & Otology. June 2003; 117 (06): 444-448.
Bruno Sergi et al. Perforation Closure Rate and Hearing after Myringoplasty. Journal of the American Academy, Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. August 2010; 143: 2.
Sergi B et al. Overlay versus underlay myringoplasty: report of outcomes considering closure of perforation and hearing function. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2011 Dec; 31(6):366-71.
Karela M et al. Myringoplasty: surgical outcomes and hearing improvement: is it worth performing to improve hearing? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2008 Sep; 265(9):1039-42.
J D Wasson, C E Papadimitriou et al. Myringoplasty: impact of perforation size on closure and audiological improvement. Cambridge Journals, the Journal of Laryngology & Otology September. 2009; 123: 09: 973-977.
B.J.Singh et al. A comparative study of different graft materials used in myringoplasty. Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery. June 2009; 61 (2): 131-134.
Lee P, Kelly G, Mills RP. Myringoplasty: does the size of the perforation matter? Clin Otolaryngol. 2002; 27 (5): 331-4.
Lin C. Er BY, Feng W, Hu Y Related Articles. The selection of tympanoplastic type in treating chronic suppurative otitis media
Frade Gonzlez C et al. Prognostic factors influencing anatomic and functional outcome in myringoplasty. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2002 Dec; 53(10):729-35.
Muhammad Ashfaq et al. Myringoplasty: Anatomical and functional results. Pakistan armed forcs medical journal, a journal of army medical corps. December 2004; 2.
Vartianen E et al, Success and pitfalls in myringoplasty: follow-up study of 404 cases. Am J Otol. 1993 May; 14(3):301-5.
Pfammatter A et al. Can myringoplasty close the air-bone gap? Otol Neurotol. 2013 Jun; 34(4):705-10.
Sudhangshu Shekhar Biswas et al. Hearing evaluation after myringoplasty. Bangladesh J Otorhinolaryngol. 2010; 16(1): 23-28.
Shrestha S et al. Hearing results after myringoplasty Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ). 2006 Oct-Dec; 4(4):455-9.
Zhi Gang Zhang et al. Three Autologous Substitutes for Myringoplasty: A Comparative Study. Otol Neurotol 2011; 32:1234-1238.
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
Tel: (001)347-983-5186