An International Journal of Otorhinolaryngology Clinics

Register      Login

VOLUME 10 , ISSUE 3 ( September-December, 2018 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Comparative Study of Advantages and Disadvantages of Endoscopic versus Conventional Myringoplasty—A Prospective Study

Sachin Jain, Shivendra P Singh, Ved P Upadhyay, Abhishek K Dubey, Himani N Singh

Keywords : Microscope, Myringoplasty,Endoscope

Citation Information : Jain S, Singh SP, Upadhyay VP, Dubey AK, Singh HN. Comparative Study of Advantages and Disadvantages of Endoscopic versus Conventional Myringoplasty—A Prospective Study. Int J Otorhinolaryngol Clin 2018; 10 (3):81-86.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10003-1298

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 00-12-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2018; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: To study, the advantages and disadvantages of the endo- scopic verses microscopic myringoplasty and compare the results of both the technique. Materials and methods: This prospective study was conducted for period of 1 year from November 2016 to August 2017 on 44 patients who under-went myringoplasty. All the patients were divided in two groups. Group A, 26 patients were operated by endoscope technique and Group B, 18 patients were operated by microscope technique. All the patients were followed a 6-month for duration postoperatively. Results: The average postoperative change in air conduction after 6 months in Group A was 8.19 ± 4.94 dB and graft takeup rate was 92.31% where as it was in 10.11 ± 5.07 dB and graft takeup rate was 77.77% in Group B. Conclusion: Endoscope technique has several advantages like less hospital stay and cosmetically excellent as compared to microscopic technique but it could take more operating time and technically difficult. While patients satisfaction and graft take rate are better in microscopic technique but there was no difference in surgeon\'s satisfaction score.


PDF Share
  1. Wullstein H, Theory And Practice Of Myringoplasty. Laryngoscope.1956;66:1076–1093.
  2. Zollner F, The Principles Of Plastic Surgery Of The Sound- Conducting Apparatus, J Laryngol Otol. 1955;69:637–652.
  3. Dennis SP.Endoscopic assisted middle ear surgery. In:Glasscock ME III Gulya Aj;Surgery of the ear.5th ed. Hamilton:Elsevier.2003;Vol 5:325–334.
  4. Mer SB, Derbyshire AJ, Brushenko A, Pontarelli DA.Fiberoptic endoscopes for examining the middle ear; Arch Otolaryngol. 1967, 85 (4):387–393.
  5. Patil RN. Endoscopic tympanoplasty– Definitely advantageous (preliminary reports). Asian J Ear Nose Throat. 2003; Vol 25:9–13.
  6. Bottrill ID, Poe DS: Endoscope-assisted ear surgery. Am J Otol 1995;161:158–163.
  7. Migirov L, Shapiro Y, Horowitz Z, Wolf M. Exclusive Endoscopic Ear Surgery for Acquired Cholesteatoma: Preliminary Results. Otol Neurotol 2011;32:433–436.
  8. Harugop A, Mudhol R, Godhi R. A comparative study of endoscope assisted myringoplasty and micrsoscope assisted myringoplasty. Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head Neck Surgery. 2008;60 (4):298–302.
  9. Yadav S P S, Aggarwal N, Julaha M, Goel A. Endoscope-assisted myringoplasty. Singapore Med J. 2009; 50(5): 510.
  10. Patel J, Aiyer RG, Gajjar Y, Gupta R, Raval J, Suthar PP. Endoscopic tympanoplasty vs microscopic tympano- plasty in tubotympanic CSOM. Int J Res Med Sci. 2015; 3(8): 1953–1957.
  11. Kumar M, Kanaujia SK, Singh A: To evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic myringoplasty. Int J Otorhinolaryngol Clin. 2015; 7(3).132–137.
  12. Shoeb M, Gita V, Bhargava S, Mhashal S. Comparison of surgical outcomes of tympanoplasty assisted by conventional microscopic method and endoscopic method. Int J otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016 ; 2(4):184–188.
  13. Gaur RS, Tejavath P, Chandel S. A comparative study of micro- scopic –assisted and endoscopic-assisted myringoplasty. Indian J Otol. 2016; 22:177–182.
  14. Gadag RP, Godse A, Narasaiah MD, Shetty N, Prajna L. Comparative study of outcomes of microscopic versus endoscopic myringoplasty. Medica Innovatica.2016; 5(1): 3–6.
  15. Raj A, Meher R. Endoscopic transcannalmyringioplasty – A study. Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery. 2001; Vol 53:47–49.
  16. Booth JB. Myringoplasty factors affecting results. Final report: Journal of Laryngology and Otolgy 1973 Nov;87:1039–1084.
  17. Cable HR. Surface tension and temporalis fascia grafts. The Journal of Laryngology and Otology 1981 Jul;95:667–673.
  18. Derlacki EL. Repair of central perforations of tympanic mem- brane. Archives of Otolaryngology 1953;58:405–420.
  19. Eichner H.Eline mother-and baby-scope –optic zur trammel- fell-und mittelohr-endoskopie. Laryngol Rhinol Otol(Stuttg) 1978;57:872–876.
  20. Monatsschr Ohrenheilkd Laryngorhinol. 1953 Oct-Dec; 87(4):308–1.1
  21. Ayache S, Tramier B, Strunski V.Otoendoscopy in Cholesteatoma urgery of the Middle Ear: What Benefits Can Be Expected? Otol. Neurotol.2008;29:1085–1090
  22. Michael MD. Homograft tympanic membrane in myringoplasty. Annals of Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1972;81:194–202.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.