Underlay Versus Modified Circumferential Subannular Graft Technique in Endoscopic Tympanoplasty

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Background and Objectives To describe and evaluate modified circumferential subannulartympanoplasty (MCST) via endoscopic approach, we compared the results of MCST tothose of the underlay technique and the results of previous studies.
Subjects and Method A retrospective comparative study was conducted of 31 patients whounderwent endoscopic transcanal tympanoplasty. Patients were classified into the MCSTgroup (n=11) and the underlay group (n=20) according to the graft technique. Demographicdata, size and location of the perforation, pre- and postoperative hearing, operating time, complicationrate, and graft success rate were analyzed in each group.
Results No significant differences between the two groups were observed in the demographicdata or the locations of the perforations. The sizes of the perforations were 31.4±14.3% and25.0±18.1%, respectively. The average operating times were 68.6±16.5 min and 64.9±9.3 min,respectively, and canaloplasty was not required in any patient. The postoperative hearing improvementand air-bone gap were not significantly different. No postoperative complicationswere observed in either group.
Conclusion MCST is a feasible and effective technique for endoscopic transcanal tympanoplasty.
The postoperative results and operating times of MCST were comparable to those ofother graft techniques. MCST showed more stable results in anterior perforation than in underlaygraft.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 Mokhtarinejad F, "Surgical and hearing results of the circumferential subannular grafting technique in tympanoplasty : A randomized clinical study" 33 (33): 75-79, 2012

2 Farrior JB, "Sandwich graft tympanoplasty: Experience, results, and complications" 99 (99): 213-217, 1989

3 Kartush JM, "Overunder tympanoplasty" 112 (112): 802-807, 2002

4 Sergi B, "Overlay versus underlay myringoplasty : Report of outcomes considering closure of perforation and hearing function" 31 (31): 366-371, 2011

5 Jung TT, "Mediolateral graft tympanoplasty for anterior or subtotal tympanic membrane perforation" 132 (132): 532-536, 2005

6 Jung T, "Medial or mediolateral graft tympanoplasty for repair of tympanic membrane perforation" 73 (73): 941-943, 2009

7 Lee HY, "Loop overlay tympanoplasty for anterior or subtotal perforations" 37 (37): 162-166, 2010

8 Plodpai Y, "Endoscopic vs microscopic overlay tympanoplasty for correcting large tympanic membrane perforations : A randomized clinical trial" 159 (159): 879-886, 2018

9 Pap I, "Endoscopic type I tympanoplasty is as effective as microscopic type I tympanoplasty but less invasive-A meta-analysis" 44 (44): 942-953, 2019

10 Gülşen S, "Endoscopic transcanal versus conventional microscopic tympanoplasty in treatment of anterior tympanic membrane perforations" 276 (276): 3327-3333, 2019

11 Tarabichi M, "Endoscopic transcanal middle ear surgery" 62 (62): 6-24, 2010

12 Jyothi AC, "Endoscopic myringoplasty versus microscopic myringoplasty in tubotympanic CSOM : A comparative study of 120 cases" 69 (69): 357-362, 2017

13 James AL, "Endoscope or microscope-g uided pediat ric tympanoplasty? Comparison of grafting technique and outcome" 127 (127): 2659-2664, 2017

14 최나연, "Comparison of Endoscopic Tympanoplasty to Microscopic Tympanoplasty" 대한이비인후과학회 10 (10): 44-49, 2017

15 Kim DJ, "Comparative study of endoscopic and microscopic tympanoplasty performed by a single experienced surgeon" 42 (42): 102788-, 2021

16 Singh GB, "Circumferential subannular tympanoplasty : Panacea for revision tympanoplasty" 41 (41): 102728-, 2020

17 Güneri A, "Circumferential subannular grafting technique in tympanoplasty : Preliminary results" 16 (16): 7-10, 2006

18 이상연, "Can Endoscopic Tympanoplasty Be a Good Alternative to Microscopic Tympanoplasty? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" 대한이비인후과학회 12 (12): 145-155, 2019

19 Schraff S, ""Window shade"tympanoplasty for anterior marginal perforations" 115 (115): 1655-1659, 2005