Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-03T04:53:51.437Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of the nature of the temporalis fascia graft on the outcome of type I underlay tympanoplasty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 March 2017

Z Jiang ,
Z Lou  and
Z Lou
Z Jiang
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Yiwu Central Hospital, Zhejiang, China
Z Lou*
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Medicine, Xinxiang Medical University, Henan, China
Z Lou*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Affiliated Yiwu Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Zhejiang, China
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Zhengcai Lou, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Affiliated Yiwu Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, 699 Jiangdong Road, Yiwu, Zhejiang 322000, China Fax: +86 057 9520 9678 E-mail: louzhengcai@163.com
Address for correspondence: Dr Zhengcai Lou, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Affiliated Yiwu Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, 699 Jiangdong Road, Yiwu, Zhejiang 322000, China Fax: +86 057 9520 9678 E-mail: louzhengcai@163.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

Temporalis fascia has become the most widely used graft for tympanoplasty, as it is strong, durable, and easy to procure and handle. However, the type of temporalis fascia graft to use (i.e. dry or wet) remains controversial. The present review aimed to evaluate the success rates of dry and wet temporalis fascia grafts in type I underlay tympanoplasty.

Methods:

A literature search was performed, using PubMed up to August 2016, to identify all studies of dry and wet temporalis fascia grafts in type I underlay tympanoplasty. The initial search using the key words ‘temporalis fascia’ and ‘tympanoplasty’ identified 130 articles; these were screened by reviewing the titles or abstracts based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Ultimately, this review included seven articles.

Results and conclusion:

A dry or wet temporalis fascia graft did not affect the outcome of type I underlay tympanoplasty. However, using wet temporalis fascia could shorten the duration of surgery in type I underlay tympanoplasty. Concerns that the fibroblast count of temporalis fascia may beneficially affect success rate have not been substantiated in clinical reports thus far.

Keywords

MyringoplastyFasciaTympanoplastyTransplants
Type
Review Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 131 , Issue 6 , June 2017 , pp. 472 - 475
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Zhang, ZG, Huang, QH, Zheng, YQ, Sun, W, Chen, YB, Si, Y. Three autologous substitutes for myringoplasty: a comparative study. Otol Neurotol 2011;32:1234–8Google Scholar
2 Hermann, H. Tympanic membrane plastic with temporalis fascia [in German]. Hals Nas Ohrenh 1960;9:136–9Google Scholar
3 Rizer, FM. Overlay versus underlay tympanoplasty. Part I: historical review of the literature. Laryngoscope 1997;107:1–25 Google Scholar
4 Wehrs, RF. Grafting techniques. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1999;32:443–55Google Scholar
5 Abul-Hassan, HS, von Drasek, Ascher G, Acland, RD. Surgical anatomy and blood supply of the fascial layers of the temporal region. Plast Reconstr Surg 1986;77:17–28 Google Scholar
6 Dabholkar, JP, Vora, K, Sikdar, A. Comparative study of underlay tympanoplasty with temporalis fascia and tragal perichondrium. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;59:116–19Google Scholar
7 Fisch, U, May, JS, Linder, T. Tympanoplasty, mastoidectomy and stapes surgery, 2nd edn. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2010;92:81 Google Scholar
8 Pattersen, ME, Lockwood, RW, Sheehy, JL. Temporalis fascia in tympanic membrane grafting. Arch Otolaryngol 1967;85:287–91Google Scholar
9 Lee, HY, Auo, HJ, Kang, JM. Loop overlay tympanoplasty for anterior or subtotal perforations. Auris Nasus Larynx 2010;37:162–6Google Scholar
10 Pinar, E, Sadullahoglu, K, Calli, C, Oncel, S. Evaluation of prognostic factors and middle ear risk index in tympanoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;139:386–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11 Salviz, M, Bayram, O, Bayram, AA, Balikci, HH, Chatzi, T, Paltura, C et al. Prognostic factors in type I tympanoplasty. Auris Nasus Larynx 2015;42:20–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12 Nardone, M, Sommerville, R, Bowman, J, Danesi, G. Myringoplasty in simple chronic otitis media: critical analysis of long-term results in a 1000-adult patient series. Otol Neurotol 2012;33:48–53 Google Scholar
13 Carr, SD, Strachan, DR, Raine, CH. Factors affecting myringoplasty success. J Laryngol Otol 2015;129:23–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14 Denoyelle, F, Roger, G, Chauvin, P, Garabedian, EN. Myringoplasty in children: predictive factors of outcome. Laryngoscope 1999;109:47–51 Google Scholar
15 Koch, WM, Friedman, EM, McGill, TJ, Healy, GB. Tympanoplasty in children. The Boston Children's Hospital experience. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1990;116:35–40 Google Scholar
16 Vrabec, JT, Deskin, RW, Grady, JJ. Meta-analysis of pediatric tympanoplasty. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;125:530–4Google Scholar
17 Manning, SC, Cantekin, EI, Kenna, MA, Bluestone, CD. Prognostic value of Eustachian tube function in pediatric tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope 1987;97:1012–16Google Scholar
18 Uyar, Y, Keleş, B, Koç, S, Oztürk, K, Arbağ, H. Tympanoplasty in pediatric patients. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2006;70:1805–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19 Collins, WO, Telischi, FF, Balkany, TJ, Buchman, CA. Pediatric tympanoplasty: effect of contralateral ear status on outcomes. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;129:646–51Google Scholar
20 Migirov, L, Volkov, A. Influence of coexisting myringosclerosis on myringoplasty outcomes in children. J Laryngol Otol 2009;123:969–72Google Scholar
21 Alkan, S, Baylanĉiĉek, S, Sözen, E, Baŝak, T, Dadaŝ, B. Effect of the use of dry (rigid) or wet (soft) temporal fascia graft on tympanoplasty. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;38:126–32Google ScholarPubMed
22 Loock, JW, Naude, N. A randomised controlled trial comparing fresh, dried, and dried-then-rehydrated temporalis fascia in myringoplasty. Clin Otolaryngol 2008;33:97–101 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23 Singh, GB, Kumar, D, Aggarwal, K, Garg, S, Arora, R, Kumar, S. Tympanoplasty: does dry or wet temporalis fascia graft matter? J Laryngol Otol 2016;130:700–5Google Scholar
24 Patterson, ME, Lockwood, RW, Sheehy, JL. Temporalis fascia in tympanic membrane grafting. Arch Otolaryngol 1967;85:287–91Google Scholar
25 Smyth, GD, Kerr, AG, Nevin, NC. Tympanic membrane grafting: animal and tissue culture experiments. J Laryngol Otol 1971;85:1167–71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26 Walby, AP, Kerr, AG, Nevin, NC, Woods, G. Tissue culture of surgically prepared temporalis fascia. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1982;7:313–17Google Scholar
27 Aslan, S, Uslu, S, Köybașioğlu, A, Oz, O, Ileri, F, Ozbilen, S. Use of dehydrated temporal fascia in chronic otitis media surgery and tympanoplasty [in Turkish]. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg 2008;18:31–4Google ScholarPubMed
28 Bhardwaj, V, Verma, R, Puri, S. Novel method of drying temporalis fascia graft for tympanomastoid surgery. Indian J Otol 2013;19:66–7Google Scholar
29 Reijnen, CJ, Kuijpers, W. The healing pattern of the drum membrane. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 1971;287:1–74 Google Scholar
30 Salén, B, Wersäll, J. Histologic study of experimental tympanic closure in cats. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 1968;244:15–32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31 Shenoi, PM. Autogenous temporalis fascia grafts: detailed light and electron microscopical observations on the effects of preparations. J Laryngol Otol 1982;96:801–10Google Scholar
32 Lou, Z. Natural evolution of an eardrum bridge in patients with a traumatic eardrum perforation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2014;271:993–6Google Scholar
33 England, RJ, Strachan, DR, Buckley, JG. Temporalis fascia grafts shrink. J Laryngol Otol 1997;111:707–8Google Scholar
34 Chow, LC, Wei, WI. Permeatal temporalis fascia graft harvesting for minimally invasive myringoplasty. Laryngoscope 2004;114:386–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35 Indorewala, S. Dimensional stability of the free fascia grafts: an animal experiment. Laryngoscope 2002;112:727–30Google Scholar
36 Kumar, V, Abbas, AK, Fausto, N, Aster, JC. Tissue renewal, regeneration and repair. In: Kumar, V, Abbas, AK, Fausto, N, eds. Robbins and Cotran Pathologic Basis of Disease. Philadelphia: Saunders, 2010;102–3Google Scholar
37 Lou, Z, Wang, Y, Su, K. Comparison of the healing mechanisms of human dry and endogenous wet traumatic eardrum perforations. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2014;271:2153–7Google Scholar
38 Caylan, R, Titiz, A, Falcioni, M, De Donato, G, Russo, A, Taibah, A et al. Myringoplasty in children: factors influencing surgical outcome. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;118:709–13Google Scholar
39 Nagle, SK, Jagade, MV, Gandhi, SR, Pawar, PV. Comparative study of outcome of type I tympanoplasty in dry and wet ear. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;61:138–40Google Scholar