Comparison between minimally invasive myringoplasty using permeatal temporalis fascia graft harvesting and posteroior tragal perichondrial graft myringoplasty

Abstract EN

Objectives : the aim of this study is to compare permeatal temporalis fascia harvesting technique and posterior perichondria! harvesting technique myringoplasty, ptients and methods: Twenty three patients presented with small or medium sized central perforations were included in this study.

The patients were divided into two groups; the first group (n = 11 patients) was subjected to permeatal temporalis fascia harvesting myringoplasty (TFG), the second group (n = 12 patients) was subjected to posterior tragal perichondrium graft myringoplasty (PG).

The operative Parameters which were compared between the two groups include : the operating time and bleeding.

The 'postoperative parameters include: perforation closure rate and healing time and wound complication.

Pre-and postoperative pure tone audiometric results were also compared. Results: the bleeding was more in TFG than PG.

The minimum operating time for TFG patients was 50 minutes, the maximum time was 75 minutes and the mean time was 55.9 minutes.

While the minimum operating time for PG patients was 40 minutes, maximum time was 55 minutes and the mean time was 46.3 minutes.

So.

The operating time in PG was less than TFG.

Two patients from TFG had residual perforation (18.2%) with success rate (81.8%).

One patient from PT group had residual perforation (8.3%) with success rate 91.7%.

So, three patients from all the patients had residual perforation (13%), with overall success rate was about 87% (20 / 23).

Three patients from TFG developed small granulations after 7, 8 and 10 weeks.

One patient from PG developed small granulation at the site of tympcmomeatal flap.

Postoperative audiometric evaluation-was similar in both groups. Conclusion: Posterior perichondrial graft is easier to perform with less operating time.

Post-operative wound complications is less.

The success rate, healing time and postoperative hearing results are nearly similar for both techniques.