To compare surgical outcomes after tympanoplasty without ossiculoplasty for chronic otitis media between transcanal endoscopic ear surgery (TEES) and postauricular microscopic ear surgery (PAMES).
Study Design
Case-control study.
Setting
Tertiary care university hospital.
Subjects and Methods
Consecutive patients (N = 122) who had undergone tympanoplasty without ossiculoplasty for chronic otitis media were enrolled in this retrospective study and divided into 2 groups: TEES (n = 47) and PAMES (n = 75). Middle ear condition was graded with the middle ear risk index. Hearing, repair of tympanic membrane perforation, and surgical time were assessed.
Results
The surgical success rate for hearing (air-bone gap ≤20 dB) was 95.7% in the TEES group and 84.0% in the PAMES group. Lower middle ear risk resulted in similar mean (95% CI) closure of air-bone gaps (TEES: 9.6, 6.5-12.6; PAMES: 8.0, 6.4-9.7; P = .333), whereas higher middle ear risk demonstrated significantly larger closure of air-bone gaps for the TEES group (10.1, 3.3-16.9) than the PAMES group (–0.2, –4.5 to 4.2; P = .009). The surgical success rate for repair of tympanic membrane perforation and surgical time were equivalent between TEES and PAMES.
Conclusion
Under favorable conditions of the middle ear, TEES and PAMES resulted in similar hearing improvement by tympanoplasty without ossiculoplasty. However, under adverse conditions of the middle ear, TEES was a more beneficial approach for hearing improvement than PAMES.
TarabichiM. Endoscopic middle ear surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1999;108:39-46.
6.
TarabichiM. Endoscopic management of acquired cholesteatoma. Am J Otol. 1997;18:544-549.
7.
LadeHChoudharySRVashishthA. Endoscopic vs microscopic myringoplasty: a different perspective. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;271:1897-1902.
8.
HarugopASMudholRSGodhiRA. A comparative study of endoscope assisted myringoplasty and micrsoscope assisted myringoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008;60:298-302.
9.
DündarRKuldukESoyFKet al. Endoscopic versus microscopic approach to type 1 tympanoplasty in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;78:1084-1089.
10.
NassifNBerlucchiMRedaellideZinisLO. Tympanic membrane perforation in children: endoscopic type I tympanoplasty, a newly technique, is it worthwhile?Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;79:1860-1864.
11.
CohenMSLandeggerLDKozinEDLeeDJ. Pediatric endoscopic ear surgery in clinical practice: lessons learned and early outcomes. Laryngoscope. 2016;126:732-738.
12.
JyothiACShrikrishnaBHKulkarniNHKumarA. Endoscopic myringoplasty versus microscopic myringoplasty in tubotympanic CSOM: a comparative study of 120 cases. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;69:357-362.
13.
KuoCHWuHM. Comparison of endoscopic and microscopic tympanoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;274:2727-2732.
JamesAL. Endoscope or microscope-guided pediatric tympanoplasty? Comparison of grafting technique and outcome. Laryngoscope. 2017;127:2659-2664.
16.
MinJKimSH. Comparison of transcanal endoscopic tympanoplasty with sterile acellular dermal allograft to conventional endaural microscopic tympanoplasty with tragal perichondrium. Am J Otolaryngol. 2018;39:167-170.
17.
KartushJM. Ossicular chain reconstruction: capitulum to malleus. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 1994;27:689-715.
18.
BellucciRJ. Dual classification of tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope. 1973;83:1754-1758.
19.
AustinDF. Reporting results in tympanoplasty. Am J Otol. 1985;6:85-88.
20.
Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium. Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium guideline for the evaluation of results of treatment of conductive hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1995;113:186-187.
21.
GurgelRKJacklerRKDobieRAPopelkaGR. A new standardized format for reporting hearing outcome in clinical trials. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;147:803-807.
22.
SakaiM. Proposal of a guideline in reporting hearing results in middle ear and mastoid surgery. Am J Otol. 1994;15:291-293.
23.
EliadesSJLimbCJ. The role of mastoidectomy in outcomes following tympanic membrane repair: a review. Laryngoscope. 2013;123:1787-1802.
24.
FurukawaTWatanabeTItoTKubotaTKakehataS. Feasibility and advantages of transcanal endoscopic myringoplasty. Otol Neurotol. 2014;35:e140-e145.
MohindraSPandaNK. Ear surgery without microscope: is it possible?Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;62:138-141.
27.
ErenSBTugrulSOzucerBVeysellerBAksoyFOzturanO. Endoscopic transcanal inlay myringoplasty: alternative approach for anterior perforations. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;153:891-893.
TsengCCLaiMTWuCCYuanSPDingYF. Short-term subjective and objective outcomes of patients receiving endoscopic transcanal myringoplasty for repairing tympanic perforations. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;158:337-342.
34.
TsengCCLaiMTWuCCYuanSPDingYF. Comparison of endoscopic transcanal myringoplasty and endoscopic type I tympanoplasty in repairing medium-sized tympanic perforations. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2017;44:672-677.
35.
YiannakisCPSproatRIyerA. Preliminary outcomes of endoscopic middle-ear surgery in 103 cases: a UK experience. J Laryngol Otol. 2018;132:493-496.
36.
AwadOGHamidKA. Endoscopic type 1 tympanoplasty in pediatric patients using tragal cartilage. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;141:532-538.
37.
KakehataSHozawaKFutaiKShinkawaH. Evaluation of attic retraction pockets by microendoscopy. Otol Neurotol. 2005;26:834-837.
38.
AhilasamyNShantiBRajasekaranS. Endoscopic tympanoplasty using nasal septal cartilage allograft. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;69:199-203.
39.
MerchantSNRaviczMEPuriaSet al. Analysis of middle ear mechanics and application to diseased and reconstructed ears. Am J Otol. 1997;18:139-154.
40.
De VosCGersdorffMGérardJM. Prognostic factors in ossiculoplasty. Otol Neurotol. 2007; 28:61-67.
41.
YungMVowlerSL. Long-term results in ossiculoplasty: an analysis of prognostic factors. Otol Neurotol. 2006;27:874-881.
42.
NardoneMSommervilleRBowmanJDanesiG. Myringoplasty in simple chronic otitis media: critical analysis of long-term results in a 1,000-adult patient series. Otol Neurotol. 2012;33:48-53.
