» Articles » PMID: 35836497

Comparison of Inlay Cartilage Butterfly and Underlay Temporal Fascia Tympanoplasty

Overview
Journal OTO Open
Date 2022 Jul 15
PMID 35836497
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To systematically review the results of inlay cartilage butterfly tympanoplasty and standard underlay temporal fascia tympanoplasty for anatomic and functional end points.

Data Sources: PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and Virtual Health Library (VHL/Lilacs) databases were searched from inception through April 2, 2021. No restrictions on language, publication year, or publication status were applied.

Review Methods: The meta-analysis included data from articles that met inclusion criteria and were extracted by 2 authors independently. The PRISMA statement was followed. Risk of Bias 2.0 and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess risk of bias. The primary outcome was tympanic membrane closure rate. The secondary outcome was improvement of the air-bone gap.

Results: Ten studies were included, 9 cohort studies and 1 randomized clinical trial, with 577 patients. The graft take rate was 82.8% in the butterfly cartilage inlay tympanoplasty group and 85.2% in the temporal fascia underlay tympanoplasty group (relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.93-1.11; = 42%, = .08). The air-bone gap reduction ranged from 6.1 to 11.28 in the butterfly cartilage inlay group and from 5.2 to 12.66 in the temporal fascia underlay group, with a mean difference between groups of -2.08 (95% CI, -3.23 to -0.94; = 58%, = .04), favoring temporal fascia underlay.

Conclusion: The 2 tympanoplasty techniques analyzed here produced similar results in terms of successful reconstruction of the tympanic membrane and reduction in the air-bone gap. Neither age nor follow-up length of time influenced outcomes.

Citing Articles

Evaluation on the possibility of sound conduction independent of tympanic air cavity for severe tympanic adhesion patients by finite element analysis.

Qin X, Yin Y, Sun H, Feng G, Gao Z Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2023; 11:1212303.

PMID: 38026880 PMC: 10644457. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1212303.

References
1.
Dornhoffer J . Hearing results with cartilage tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope. 1997; 107(8):1094-9. DOI: 10.1097/00005537-199708000-00016. View

2.
Yang T, Wu X, Peng X, Zhang Y, Xie S, Sun H . Comparison of cartilage graft and fascia in type 1 tympanoplasty: systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Otolaryngol. 2016; 136(11):1085-1090. DOI: 10.1080/00016489.2016.1195013. View

3.
SHEA Jr J . Vein graft closure of eardrum perforations. J Laryngol Otol. 1960; 74:358-62. DOI: 10.1017/s002221510005670x. View

4.
Ference R, Leonard J, Weinstock M, Bent J . Evaluating butterfly inlay tympanoplasty. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2019; 127:109684. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.109684. View

5.
Jalali M, Motasaddi M, Kouhi A, Dabiri S, Soleimani R . Comparison of cartilage with temporalis fascia tympanoplasty: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Laryngoscope. 2016; 127(9):2139-2148. DOI: 10.1002/lary.26451. View