To assess the prognostic factors for anatomic and hearing success after tympanoplasty in the setting of complex middle ear pathology.
Methods:
A systematic review was performed in January 2022. English-language articles describing outcome data for tympanoplasty repair variables including underlying pathology, perforation location, smoking status, graft technique, reconstruction material, anatomic success, and hearing success were extracted. Articles were included when tympanosclerosis, retraction pockets, adhesions, cholesteatoma, chronic suppurative otitis media, anterior perforations, and smoking were included. Underlying pathology, perforation location, smoking status, graft technique, reconstruction material, anatomic success, and hearing success were extracted. Any factors analyzed as potential indicators of success were sought out.
Results:
Data sources included PubMed, OVID, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, and manual search of bibliographies. Ninety-three articles met final criteria, which accounted for 6685 patients. Fifty articles presented data on both anatomic and hearing outcomes, 32 articles presented data on anatomic outcomes only, and 11 articles presented data on hearing outcomes only. This systematic review found that adhesions and tympanosclerosis were prognostic factors for poorer hearing. Additionally, smoking and tympanosclerosis may be predictive of anatomic failure; however, the significance of this finding was mixed in included studies. This analysis is significantly limited by both the heterogeneity within the patients and the lack of controls.
Conclusion:
Adhesions and tympanosclerosis were prognostic factors for poorer hearing. Clearly documented methods and outcomes for the included pathologies could lead to more definitive conclusions regarding prognostic factors for success.
ZollnerF.The principles of Plastic Surgery of the sound-conducting apparatus. J Laryngol Otol. 1955;69(10):637-652.
2.
WullsteinH.Theory and practice of tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope. 1956;66(8):1076-1093. doi:10.1288/00005537-195608000-00008
3.
BluestoneCDCantekinEIDouglasGS.Eustachian tube function related to the results of tympanoplasty in children. Laryngoscope. 1979;89(3):450-458. doi:10.1288/00005537-197903000-00013
4.
NeumannAKevenhoersterKGostianAO.Long-term results of palisade cartilage tympanoplasty. Otol Neurotol. 2010;31(6):936-939. doi:10.1097/MAO.0B013E3181E71479
5.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJAltmanDG.Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi:10.1371/JOURNAL.PMED.1000097
6.
SlimKNiniEForestierDKwiatkowskiFPanisYChipponiJ.Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg. 2003;73(9):712-716. doi:10.1046/J.1445-2197.2003.02748.X
7.
ChenSLYangSW.Factors affecting the treatment outcomes of myringoplasty in patients with small tympanic membrane perforations. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2019;276(11):3005-3012. doi:10.1007/S00405-019-05583-6
8.
SalvadorPGomesPSilvaFFonsecaR.Type I tympanoplasty: surgical success and prognostic factors. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2021;72(3):182-189. doi:10.1016/J.OTORRI.2020.04.009
9.
JungDJLeeHJHongJS, et al. Prediction of hearing outcomes in chronic otitis media patients underwent tympanoplasty using ossiculoplasty outcome parameter staging or middle ear risk indices. PLoS One. 2021;16(7):e0252812. doi:10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0252812
10.
NaderpourMJabbari MoghadamYGhanbarpourEShahidiN.Evaluation of factors affecting the surgical outcome in tympanoplasty. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;28(85):99-104.
11.
LimaJCBDMaroneSAMMartucciOGonçalezFSilva NetoJJDRamosACM. Evaluation of the organic and functional results of tympanoplasties through a retro-auricular approach at a medical residency unit. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2011;77(2):229-236. doi:10.1590/S1808-86942011000200013
12.
SalvizMBayramOBayramAA, et al. Prognostic factors in type I tympanoplasty. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2015;42(1):20-23. doi:10.1016/J.ANL.2014.08.010
13.
AlbuSTrabalziniFAmadoriM.Usefulness of cortical mastoidectomy in myringoplasty. Otol Neurotol. 2012;33(4):604-609. doi:10.1097/MAO.0B013E31825368F2
14.
CoelhoDHPengAThompsonMSismanisA.Cartilage tympanoplasty in smokers. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2012;121(10):657-663. doi:10.1177/000348941212101006
15.
BabuSLuryiALSchuttCA.Over-under versus medial tympanoplasty: Comparison of benefit, success, and hearing results. Laryngoscope. 2019;129(5):1206-1210. doi:10.1002/LARY.27599
16.
NiaziSAKhattakSFAtifKRafiqueAGoharMS.Why myringoplasties fail? Impact of relevant clinical factors on the surgical outcome; a study from pakistan. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2021;33(3):412-415.
17.
LesinskasEStankeviciuteV.Results of revision tympanoplasty for chronic non-cholesteatomatous otitis media. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2011;38(2):196-202. doi:10.1016/J.ANL.2010.07.010
18.
YurttasVYakutFKutluhanABozdemirK.Preparation and placement of cartilage island graft in tympanoplasty. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;80(6):522-526. doi:10.1016/J.BJORL.2014.08.007
19.
LouZ.Endoscopic full-thickness cartilage-perichondrium double graft myringoplasty in adhesive perforation: retrospective case series. Acta Otolaryngol. 2021;141(1):14-18. doi:10.1080/00016489.2020.1814406
20.
SevilEDoblanA.Significance of the middle ear risk index in predicting tympanoplasty success in the elderly. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2021;278(10):3689-3695. doi:10.1007/S00405-020-06430-9
21.
LeeSChoHH.Transcanal endoscopic tympanoplasty for pediatric patients under 15 years of age with chronic otitis media. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;13(1):41-46. doi:10.21053/CEO.2019.00318
22.
ComacchioFMionMPedruzziB.Retraction pocket excision with cartilage grafting as a preventive surgery for cholesteatoma. J Otol. 2017;12(3):112-116. doi:10.1016/J.JOTO.2017.04.003
23.
CassanoMCassanoP.Retraction pockets of pars tensa in pediatric patients: clinical evolution and treatment. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2010;74(2):178-182. doi:10.1016/J.IJPORL.2009.11.004
24.
KhalilullahSShahSPYadavDShrivastavRPBhattaraiH.Comparison of results of graft uptake using tragal cartilage perichondrium composite graft versus temporalis fascia in patients undergoing surgery for chronic otitis media - squamous type. Head Face Med. 2016;12(1):26. doi:10.1186/S13005-016-0123-Z
25.
MierzwińskiJFishmanAJOtolaryngologiiOFoniatrii DziecięcejASzpital Dziecięcy BydgoszczyW.Retraction pockets of tympanic membrane: protocol of management and results of treatment Protokół postępowania i wyniki leczenia kieszonek retrakcyjnych błony bębenkowej. Otorynolaryngologia. 2014;13(2):114-121.
26.
ShishegarMFaramarziMRashidi RavariM.Evaluation of middle ear risk index in patients undergoing tympanoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2019;276(10):2769-2774. doi:10.1007/S00405-019-05539-W
27.
KasbekarAVPatelVRubasingheMSrinivasanV.The surgical management of tympanic membrane retraction pockets using cartilage tympanoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;66(4):449-454. doi:10.1007/S12070-014-0764-9
28.
AlaaniARautVV.Kurz titanium prosthesis ossiculoplasty—Follow-up statistical analysis of factors affecting one year hearing results. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2010;37(2):150-154. doi:10.1016/J.ANL.2009.05.004
29.
GonçalvesAIRatoCDuarteDde VilhenaD.Type I tympanoplasty in pediatric age - the results of a tertiary hospital. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2021;150:110899. doi:10.1016/J.IJPORL.2021.110899
30.
van StekelenburgBCAAartsMCJ.Determinants influencing success rates of myringoplasty in daily practice: a retrospective analysis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2019;276(11):3081-3087. doi:10.1007/S00405-019-05611-5
31.
SahooSRTripathiJKumariSRastogiS.Efficacy of middle-ear packing in success of type 1 tympanoplasty: a prospective randomised study. J Laryngol Otol. 2021;135(10):864-868. doi:10.1017/S0022215121002012
32.
BaklaciDGulerIKuzucuIKumROOzcanM.Type 1 tympanoplasty in pediatric patients: a review of 102 cases. BMC Pediatr. 2018;18(1):345. doi:10.1186/S12887-018-1326-1
33.
KarataşMDoğanS.Endoscopic inlay butterfly cartilage tympanoplasty in pediatric patients. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2019;121:10-14. doi:10.1016/J.IJPORL.2019.02.042
34.
KayaIBenzerMGodeSSahinFBilgenCKirazliT.Pediatric type 1 cartilage tympanoplasty outcomes: A comparison of short and long term hearing results. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2018;45(4):722-727. doi:10.1016/J.ANL.2017.11.002
35.
LeeJMSeoYJShimDBLeeHJKimSH.Surgical outcomes of tympanoplasty using a sterile acellular dermal allograft: a prospective randomised controlled study. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2018;38(6):554-562. doi:10.14639/0392-100X-1839
36.
TekAKaramanMUsluC, et al. Audiological and graft take results of cartilage reinforcement tympanoplasty (a new technique) versus fascia. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;269(4):1117-1126. doi:10.1007/S00405-011-1779-4
37.
YilmazMSKaraAGuvenMDemirDErkorkmazU.Assessment of the factors that affect the anatomic and functional success of cartilage tympanoplasty in children. J Craniofac Surg. 2017;28(2):e106-e110. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000003162
38.
DursunETerziSDemirE, et al. The evaluation of prognostic factors in endoscopic cartilage tympanoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;277(10):2687-2691. doi:10.1007/S00405-020-05992-Y
39.
AboodATorzynskiBOvesenT.Pediatric type 1 tympanoplasty - does age matter?Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;137:110219. doi:10.1016/J.IJPORL.2020.110219
40.
SinghGBKwatraDMalhotraSKumarS.Circumferential subannular tympanoplasty: panacea for revision tympanoplasty. Am J Otolaryngol. 2020;41(6):102728. doi:10.1016/J.AMJOTO.2020.102728
41.
FermiMMaccarroneFVillariD, et al. Endoscopic tympanoplasty type I for tympanic perforations: analysis of prognostic factors. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2021;278(12):4715-4722. doi:10.1007/S00405-020-06588-2
42.
MarquesJASSousaMLealLMSpratleyJSantosM. Pediatric tympanoplasty: a paradigm shift?Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2021;72(6):375-380. doi:10.1016/j.otorri.2020.10.003
43.
CassNDPattenLCassSP.Collagen allografts compared with autologous tissue in tympanoplasty. Otol Neurotol. 2019;40(6):767-771. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000002254
44.
DursunEDemirETerziS, et al. Endoscopic type 1 cartilage tympanoplasty in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;131:109854. doi:10.1016/J.IJPORL.2019.109854
45.
RyanJEBriggsRJ.Outcomes of the overlay graft technique in tympanoplasty. ANZ J Surg. 2010;80(9):624-629. doi:10.1111/J.1445-2197.2010.05405.X
46.
ZwierzAHaberKSinkiewiczAKalińczak-GórnaPTyraJMierzwińskiJ.The significance of selected prognostic factors in pediatric tympanoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2019;276(2):323-333. doi:10.1007/S00405-018-5193-Z
47.
ChavanSSJainPVVediJNRaiDKKadriH.Ossiculoplasty: a prospective study of 80 cases. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;26(76):143-150.
48.
MardassiADevezeASanjuanM, et al. Titanium ossicular chain replacement prostheses: prognostic factors and preliminary functional results. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2011;128(2):53-58. doi:10.1016/J.ANORL.2010.11.005
49.
MeulemansJWuytsFLFortonGE.Middle ear reconstruction using the titanium Kurz variac partial ossicular replacement prosthesis: functional results. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;139(10):1017-1025. doi:10.1001/JAMAOTO.2013.4751
50.
AlzahraniMSalibaI.Tympanic membrane retraction pocket staging: is it worthwhile?Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;271(6):1361-1368. doi:10.1007/s00405-013-2644-4
51.
SpinosDMallickSJuddO.Management of retraction pockets: historic and novel approaches. J Laryngol Otol. 2022;136(7):582-587. doi:10.1017/S0022215121004321
52.
JamesALPapsinBCTrimbleK, et al. Tympanic membrane retraction: an endoscopic evaluation of staging systems. Laryngoscope. 2012;122(5):1115-1120. doi:10.1002/lary.23203
53.
PothierD.Sade and tos classifications of the tympanic membrane: not reliable?Clin Otolaryngol. 2006;31(3):249-249. doi:10.1111/j.1749-4486.2006.01236_15.x
54.
DaveVRuparelM.Correlation of Eustachian tube dysfunction with results of tympanoplasty in mucosal type of chronic suppurative otitis media. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019;71(1):10-13. doi:10.1007/S12070-018-1525-Y
55.
KamathMPSreedharanSRaoARRajVRajuK.Success of myringoplasty: our experience. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;65(4):358-362. doi:10.1007/S12070-013-0651-9
56.
TorosSZHabesogluTEHabesogluM, et al. Do patients with sclerotic mastoids require aeration to improve success of tympanoplasty?Acta Otolaryngol. 2010;130(8):909-912. doi:10.3109/00016480903559731
57.
OlusesiADOpaluwahEHassanSB.Subjective and objective outcomes of tympanoplasty surgery at National Hospital Abuja, Nigeria 2005-2009. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2011;268(3):367-372. doi:10.1007/S00405-010-1405-X
58.
NohHLeeDH.Vascularisation of myringo-/tympanoplastic grafts in active and inactive chronic mucosal otitis media: a prospective cohort study. Clin Otolaryngol. 2012;37(5):355-361. doi:10.1111/COA.12014
59.
ShankarRVirkRSGuptaKGuptaAKBalABansalS.Evaluation and comparison of type I tympanoplasty efficacy and histopathological changes to the tympanic membrane in dry and wet ear: a prospective study. J Laryngol Otol. 2015;129(10):945-949. doi:10.1017/S0022215115002091
60.
RaiAKSinghGBSahuRSinghSAroraR.Evaluation of simultaneous bilateral same day tympanoplasty type I in chronic suppurative otitis media. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2014;41(2):148-152. doi:10.1016/J.ANL.2013.10.007
61.
SinghGBAroraRGargSRanjanSKumarS.Role of tympanometric volume in paediatric tympanoplasty. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;79(11):1872-1875. doi:10.1016/J.IJPORL.2015.08.027
62.
DüzenliUBozanNTuranMAğırbaşSTekeliAEKıroğluAF.The effect of nitrous oxide on the outcomes of underlay tympanoplasty: a prospective study. Ear Nose Throat J. 2019;98(10):621-624. doi:10.1177/0145561319846460
63.
DeosthaleNVKhadakkarSPKumarPD, et al. Effectiveness of type I tympanoplasty in wet and dry ear in safe chronic suppurative otitis media. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;70(3):325-330. doi:10.1007/S12070-017-1075-8
64.
HabermanRSSalapatasAM.Hearing outcomes after ossicular reconstruction with removal of the malleus. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;158(1):144-150. doi:10.1177/0194599817726279
65.
MohantySManimaranVUmamaheswaranPJeyabalakrishnanSChelladuraiS.Endoscopic cartilage versus temporalis fascia grafting for anterior quadrant tympanic perforations — a prospective study in a tertiary care hospital. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2018;45(5):936-942. doi:10.1016/J.ANL.2018.01.002
66.
DunyaGCasazzaGCBlotterJParkEJParkAH.Comparing two different techniques to repair pediatric anterior tympanic membrane perforations. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2021;150:110903. doi:10.1016/J.IJPORL.2021.110903
67.
AlharbiSMAl AsseriWYArdiTAAl-QahtaniAS.Myringoplasty outcome. Five-year experience at a tertiary teaching hospital. Saudi Med J. 2019;40(2):199-201. doi:10.15537/SMJ.2019.2.23896
68.
KawanoH.Interlay myringoplasty with anterior subannular grafting technique for anterior and subtotal perforations. Otol Neurotol. 2020;41(6):791-794. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000002649
69.
BluherAEManninoEAStrasnickB.Longitudinal analysis of “window shade” tympanoplasty outcomes for anterior marginal tympanic membrane perforations. Otol Neurotol. 2019;40(3):E173-E177. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000002147
70.
GavrielHEviatarE.Inferior flap tympanoplasty: a novel technique for anterior perforation closure. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:758598. doi:10.1155/2013/758598
71.
GülşenSArıcıM.Endoscopic transcanal versus conventional microscopic tympanoplasty in treatment of anterior tympanic membrane perforations. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2019;276(12):3327-3333. doi:10.1007/S00405-019-05646-8
72.
TsengCCLaiMTWuCCYuanSPDingYF.Endoscopic transcanal myringoplasty for anterior perforations of the tympanic membrane. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;142(11):1088-1093. doi:10.1001/JAMAOTO.2016.2114
ShomanNM.Clinical and audiometric outcomes of palisade cartilage myringoplasty under local anesthetic in an office setting. Am J Otolaryngol. 2019;40(4):482-486. doi:10.1016/J.AMJOTO.2019.03.015
75.
ChoiSWKimHNaHS, et al. Comparison of medial underlay and lateral underlay endoscopic type I tympanoplasty for anterior perforations of the tympanic membrane. Otol Neurotol. 2021;42(8):1177-1183. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000003138
76.
MarchioniDGazziniLDe RossiS, et al. The management of tympanic membrane perforation with endoscopic type I tympanoplasty. Otol Neurotol. 2020;41(2):214-221. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000002465
77.
OzturkABenzerMKayaIGodeSBilgenCKirazliT.Comparison of anterior and posterior tympanomeatal flap elevations in endoscopic transcanal tympanoplasty. Acta Otolaryngol. 2019;139(8):692-696. doi:10.1080/00016489.2019.1612533
78.
LouZ.Endoscopic cartilage myringoplasty with inside out elevation of a tympanomeatal flap for repairing anterior tympanic membrane perforations. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2020;129(8):795-800. doi:10.1177/0003489420915208
79.
BeutnerDHuttenbrinkKBStumpfR, et al. Cartilage plate tympanoplasty. Otol Neurotol. 2010;31(1):105-110. doi:10.1097/MAO.0B013E3181BE6B48
80.
DumontJAbouzaydMLe LouarnAPondavenSBakhosDLescanneE.Total and partial ossiculoplasty in children: Audiological results and predictive factors. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2019;136(3):161-164. doi:10.1016/J.ANORL.2019.02.012
81.
Hess-ErgaJMøllerPVassbotnFS.Long-term hearing result using Kurz titanium ossicular implants. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;270(6):1817-1821. doi:10.1007/S00405-012-2218-X
82.
Iñiguez-CuadraRAlobidIBorés-DomenechAMenéndez-ColinoLMCaballero-BorregoMBernal-SprekelsenM.Type III tympanoplasty with titanium total ossicular replacement prosthesis: anatomic and functional results. Otol Neurotol. 2010;31(3):409-414. doi:10.1097/MAO.0B013E3181CC04B5
83.
QuarantaNZizziSQuarantaA.Hearing results using titanium ossicular replacement prosthesis in intact canal wall tympanoplasty for cholesteatoma. Acta Otolaryngol. 2011;131(1):36-40. doi:10.3109/00016489.2010.516014
84.
WiatrMWiatrASkładzieńJStrękP.Determinants of change in air-bone gap and bone conduction in patients operated on for chronic otitis media. Med Sci Monit. 2015;21:2345-2351. doi:10.12659/MSM.894087
85.
WiatrMSkładzieńJTomikJStrękPPrzeklasa-MuszyńskaA.Type II tympanoplasty in chronic cholesteatoma and granulomatous otitis media - distant results of otosurgery. Adv Med Sci. 2014;59(1):44-46. doi:10.1016/J.ADVMS.2013.07.004
86.
FukudaAMoritaSNakamaruYHoshinoKFujiwaraKHommaA.Short-term hearing prognosis of ossiculoplasty in pars flaccida cholesteatoma using the EAONO/JOS staging system. J Int Adv Otol. 2019;15(1):2-7. doi:10.5152/IAO.2019.5983
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
