Published online Aug 9, 2024. doi: 10.5319/wjo.v11.i2.18
Revised: May 22, 2024
Accepted: July 15, 2024
Published online: August 9, 2024
Processing time: 177 Days and 4.3 Hours
Endoscopic ear surgery (EES) provides a magnified, high-definition view of the otological surgical field. EES allows otologists to avoid surgical incisions and associated postoperative complications. It is an ideal technique for the perfor
To examine the efficacy of total Endoscopic Push Through Tragal Cartilage Tympanoplasty (EPTTCT), at our institution over a 10-year period.
A retrospective analysis of 168 cases of EPTTCT for closure of small to medium tympanic membrane perforations from 2013-2023 was conducted. Patient sex, age range (pediatric vs adult), etiology of injury, success rate, complications, and postoperative hearing status were collected.
Graft uptake results indicated success in 94% of patients, with less than a 2% complication rate. Postoperative pure tone audiometry demonstrated hearing status improvement in 69% of patients.
EPTTCT has been shown to be effective in tympanic membrane perforation closures with minimal complications. This study further demonstrates the efficacy and safety of these procedures in a single-center review.
Core Tip: Endoscopic push through tragal cartilage tympanoplasty is an effective method for tympanic membrane perforation repairs with a high degree of success with a low complication rate. It is effective for all age groups and shows marginally better success rates in the pediatric population. It also exhibits good postoperative hearing outcomes in over two-thirds of the patients in this 10-year single-center review.
- Citation: Rahman KMA, Majeed K, Finnegan E, Keogh I. Endoscopic push through tragal cartilage tympanoplasty: A 10-year retrospective review of our technique and outcomes. World J Otorhinolaryngol 2024; 11(2): 18-24
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-6247/full/v11/i2/18.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5319/wjo.v11.i2.18
The use of microscopes for middle ear surgery has been prominent since the 1950s[1]. Historically, tympanoplasties have been performed using a post-auricular incision, end-aural incision, or a trans-canal technique, using a microscope to assist in the procedure[2,3]. Although post-auricular and end-aural techniques are effective in tympanic membrane perforation closures, the larger incisions and more extensive soft tissue dissection associated with the procedure leads to post
Endoscopic ear surgery (EES) has risen to prominence due to its minimally invasive nature avoiding external incisions and tissue dissections[6,7]. The endoscope offers a wider view of the surgical area and allows the user to navigate around corners, affording better visualization of difficult to access areas[5]. The angled view provided by endoscopes is particularly important in visualizing the anterior aspects of the tympanic membrane[8]. This view provides ease of navigation around anterior overhangs, allowing one to perform tympanoplasties more easily for anterior perforations that may normally require end-aural or post-auricular incisions.
EES can be classified according to Cohen’s classification, as outlined in Table 1[9]. Total EES are Cohen Class 3 surgeries[9]. Endoscopes can be used for a variety of procedures, such as myringotomy, grommet insertion, exploration of the middle ear, and ossiculoplasty[8,10,11]. Although there is a steep learning curve associated with EES, this technique allows the primary surgeon to train others actively during the procedures.
Class | Extent of endoscope usage |
0 | None |
1 | For inspection only |
2a | < 50% of the surgical dissection |
2b | > 50% but < 100% of the surgical dissection |
3 | Entire surgery |
There are several sources of autologous grafts that have been employed for perforation closures in tympanoplasties[12]. These include temporalis fascia, tragal perichondrium, cartilage, fat, and fascia lata[12]. Although all of these are viable graft sources, a temporalis fascia graft is usually preferred due to its proximity to the surgical site[12]. However, cartilage grafts have become popular due to their significantly higher graft integration rates while providing im
The aim of this paper is to outline how Endoscopic Push Through Tragal Cartilage Tympanoplasty (EPTTCT) is performed at University Hospital Galway and to evaluate the clinical outcomes, graft uptake, hearing change, and surgical complications over a 10-year period.
A single-center retrospective cohort study was performed. Ethical approval was obtained from the research ethics committee of University Hospital Galway. Patients who underwent EPTTCT between 2013 and 2023 were identified. Patients were included if they underwent Total Endoscopic Tympanoplasties (Cohen Class 3) for small (< 25% of the tympanic membrane) to medium (< 50% of the tympanic membrane) perforations using a tragal cartilage graft. Patients were excluded as follows: (1) If they underwent complicated tympanoplasties (e.g., palisades technique); (2) had large perforations (> 50% of the tympanic membrane); (3) alternate graft harvest sites were utilized (e.g., conchal cartilage graft); (4) if additional surgical interventions were required (e.g., raising the tympanomeatal flap, ossicular chain reconstruction, canalplasty, or usage of microscope to complete the surgical intervention); and (5) if incomplete patient follow-up post-surgery occurred. Patient information, including demographics, and surgical and clinical outcomes were collected using theater registers and electronic health records. Measured outcomes included assessment of perforation closure at 6-month follow-up, post-surgical hearing outcomes, and post-surgical complications. Post-surgical hearing was assessed based on pure tone audiometry averages at 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz frequencies.
All patients underwent EPTTCT as an elective day case procedure under general anesthetic. A 3-mm, 14-cm, 0º Hopkins rod rigid endoscope with a triple chip high-definition camera was used for all surgical procedures. The ear canals were prepared by injecting local anesthetic into the tragus. Exocin© antibiotic ear drops were also used in the canals prior to the start of each surgery. The cartilage graft used for the repairs was harvested from the ipsilateral ear through a 1-cm incision made on the inner aspect of the tragus. A 6-mm punch biopsy was used to harvest the tragal cartilage grafts, as shown in Figure 1. This technique is efficient and allows preservation of the integrity of the tragus. The cartilage graft was then shaved using a Kurtz knife. The edges of the tympanic membrane perforation were freshened to optimize graft uptake and healing. The cartilage grafts were sized according to the perforation dimensions, allowing for at least a 1-mm support rim around the edges. The edges of the cartilage grafts were also beveled to allow for optimal placement on the medial aspect of the perforation in the middle ear. Gelfoam© was used as a supporting underlay material for the graft in the middle ear, ensuring that the cartilage graft remained in contact with the tympanic membrane. The cartilage graft was placed in the middle ear using an endoscopic push through technique with the perichondrium side facing toward the external auditory canal. The ear canal was further packed with Gelfoam© soaked in Exocin©. The tragus was closed with an absorbable suture. BIPP© ribbon gauze was used to pack the remaining external auditory canal. The dressings were kept in place for 3 week, after which they were removed in the outpatient department and topical antibiotic drops were started for 7 days.
All cases of EPTTCT that met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. All cases were followed up for at least 6 months post-surgery, with the vast majority followed for at least 1 year. Age, sex, post-surgical complications, type of surgery (revision vs primary surgery), and post-surgical outcomes were recorded. Patient data was also stratified to assess pediatric vs adult population outcomes and complications.
Four hundred and fifty-six cases of tympanoplasties were reviewed. One hundred and sixty-eight cases met the inclusion criteria (2013-2023), with 92 male patients (55%) and 76 female patients (45%), as shown in Table 2. Age ranged from 8 years to 64 years, with a mean age of 25.76 (± 16.93) years (standard deviation). Just over half the patients (n = 86) were pediatric cases (age < 18 years). Perforations in 83% of the cases were secondary to a history of otitis media. Although most cases were primary surgeries, a small percentage of revision surgeries (n = 8) were included in the final data collection and analysis.
Parameter | Value |
Male | 92 (54.8) |
Female | 76 (45.2) |
Pediatric, < 18 years | 86 (51.2) |
Adults | 82 (48.8) |
Etiology | |
Otitis media | 140 (83.3) |
Traumatic injury | 28 (16.7) |
Left ear | 81 (48.2) |
Right ear | 87 (51.8) |
Age range | 8–64 |
Age, mean ± SD | 25.76 ± 16.93 |
Primary cases | 160 |
Revision surgeries | 8 |
An overall graft success rate of 94% (n = 159) was achieved on postoperative follow-up at 6 months (Table 3). The success rate for primary surgeries was 95% (n = 152), which was higher compared to revision surgeries (87%). Both pediatric and adult populations had very high success rates for perforation closure: 96% for pediatric surgeries and 93% for adult surgeries.
Characteristics | Value |
Graft success | 159/168 (94.6) |
Adult | 76/82 (92.6) |
Pediatric, < 18 years | 83/86 (96.5) |
Primary surgery | 152/160 (95) |
Revision surgery | 7/8 (87.5) |
Persistent perforation | 9/168 (5.4) |
Primary, n = 160 | 8/160 (5) |
Revision surgeries, n = 8 | 1/8 (12.5) |
Complications | |
Surgical site infection | 3/168 (1.8) |
Hearing improvement | 117/168 (69.6) |
Adults | 53/82 (64.6) |
Pediatric | 64/86 (74.4) |
Overall air-bone gap improvement | 12.37 ± 11.42 |
Pediatric | 12.27 ± 10.08 |
Adult | 12.5 ± 13.2 |
Surgical complications were also analyzed. In total, 5% of patients (n = 9) presented with persistent perforations after initial EPTTCT attempt at closure. Three cases developed postoperative tragal wound infections, requiring additional medical treatment. No tragal hematomas were recorded. No postoperative vertigo, tinnitus, or hearing loss was noted.
Pre- and postoperative audiograms for all patients were assessed. Postoperative pure tone audiometry was conducted at 3 and 6-mo follow-up appointments. None of the patients included in the study displayed a decrease in hearing post-surgery. An average of a 12.37-dB improvement in hearing (air-bone gap) was noted on postoperative pure tone audiometry. Over two-thirds of patients (n = 117, 69%) displayed an improvement in their postoperative hearing outcomes.
Tympanic membrane perforation closure through graft integration is the primary goal when performing tympanoplasties[1]. Secondary goals for this procedure include improvements in postoperative hearing outcomes, decreasing the operative time, and reducing postoperative complication rates[1]. A recent meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials conducted by our institution has shown that endoscopic tympanoplasties have significantly shorter operative times compared to microscopic tympanoplasties[1]. Endoscopic tympanoplasties have also been shown to have less posto
Our overall tympanoplasty success rate of over 94% for EPTTCT exemplifies the efficacy of this procedure in closing small to medium tympanic membrane perforations. These success rates for Cohen Class 3 tympanic membrane repairs over a decade are comparable to other published literature for similar surgical techniques[17,18].
Endoscopic tympanoplasties have the benefit of wide, high-definition views of the surgical field, allowing for optimal graft placement and adjustment[6]. The optimal view also ensures ideal underlay placement of the graft, and appropriate contact with the tympanic membrane[6]. Compared to other established techniques, such as microscopic tympanoplasties, our endoscopic technique had superior outcomes[1,19-21]. However, it is important to acknowledge that microscopic tympanoplasties were preferentially used in cases where the perforations were significantly larger, or the external auditory canals were narrower in size, requiring canalplasties to allow for improved surgical field visualization[19,22]. It is important to take these differences in procedural complexity into account when comparing differences in graft uptake rates.
Children had a marginally higher success rate (96% vs 93%). Advanced age is known to directly impact in the healing process, which may have contributed to this difference[23,24].
Revision procedures also had a lower success rate when compared to primary interventions (95% vs 87%). Repeated procedures are known to lead to increased scar tissue formation at the surgical site, which can hinder the integration of the autologous graft with the host tympanic membrane[25]. Only a small number of revision cases (n = 8) underwent EPTTCT for our institutional study; however, the surgical success rates were similar to other institutional outcomes[26]. Similar graft uptake rates for revision surgeries have been published, ranging from 78%-93% success for revision tympanoplasties[27-29].
Although the primary function of tympanoplasties is to create a barrier between the external auditory canal and middle ear, an improvement in hearing outcomes is also an additional positive outcome[20,28,30]. In total, 69% (n = 117) of the cases that were examined exhibited an improvement in hearing outcomes following EPTTCT. On average, a 12.37 ± 11.42-dB improvement in the air-bone gap was noted, similar to established literature values for both endoscopic and microscopic tympanoplasties[19,27,29]. When stratified according to age, the average improvement was noted to be similar in both pediatric and adult populations (12.27 ± 10.08 vs 12.5 ± 13.2). However, a larger proportion of the pediatric cases demonstrated a post-surgery hearing improvement compared to the adult population (74% vs 64%). This data is similar to our previous finding of higher graft closure rates in the pediatric population compared to the adult population.
This study was limited by several factors. This is a retrospective study, carried out in a single institution. In addition to this, a specific subtype of endoscopic surgeries was analyzed, rather than the efficacy of the technique as a whole. Certain nuances to the surgical technique are particular to the senior author, with a primary aim being to share our technique. Although this study exemplifies the high success rates of EPTTCT, future studies should look toward prospective analyses to better understand outcome and complication rates of this procedure.
This study demonstrates that EPTTCT is effective in repairing small to medium tympanic membrane perforations with minimal complications, demonstrating a 94% closure rate and 69% improvement in hearing outcomes. It is particularly effective in children and in primary cases. This study reaffirms the findings in recent published literature that exemplify the efficacy and minimally invasive nature of endoscopic tympanoplasty. In addition, we describe and provide further evidence to support the effectiveness of our technique of performing EPTTCT.
1. | Crotty TJ, Cleere EF, Keogh IJ. Endoscopic Versus Microscopic Type-1 Tympanoplasty: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials. Laryngoscope. 2023;133:1550-1557. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
2. | Lee SY, Lee DY, Seo Y, Kim YH. Can Endoscopic Tympanoplasty Be a Good Alternative to Microscopic Tympanoplasty? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2019;12:145-155. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 26] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 28] [Article Influence: 5.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
3. | Patel J, Aiyer R, Gajjar Y, Gupta R, Raval J, Suthar P. Endoscopic tympanoplasty vs microscopic tympanoplasty in tubotympanic csom: a comparative study of 44 cases. Int J Res Med Sci. 2015;3. [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] |
4. | Sarkar S. A review on the history of tympanoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;65:455-460. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 22] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 17] [Article Influence: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
5. | Yang Q, Wang B, Zhang J, Liu H, Xu M, Zhang W. Comparison of endoscopic and microscopic tympanoplasty in patients with chronic otitis media. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2022;279:4801-4807. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
6. | Emre IE, Cingi C, Bayar Muluk N, Nogueira JF. Endoscopic ear surgery. J Otol. 2020;15:27-32. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 14] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 20] [Article Influence: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
7. | Kozin ED, Gulati S, Kaplan AB, Lehmann AE, Remenschneider AK, Landegger LD, Cohen MS, Lee DJ. Systematic review of outcomes following observational and operative endoscopic middle ear surgery. Laryngoscope. 2015;125:1205-1214. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 143] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 127] [Article Influence: 14.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
8. | Tarabichi M. Endoscopic middle ear surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1999;108:39-46. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 184] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 173] [Article Influence: 6.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
9. | Cohen MS, Basonbul RA, Barber SR, Kozin ED, Rivas AC, Lee DJ. Development and validation of an endoscopic ear surgery classification system. Laryngoscope. 2018;128:967-970. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 27] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 29] [Article Influence: 4.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
10. | Keogh IJ, Fahy R, Garry S, Fahy E, Corbett M. Endoscopic ear surgery (EES): a new vista in otology. Ir Med J. 2021;114:267. [Cited in This Article: ] |
11. | Curran JF, Coleman H, Tikka T, Iyer A. Comparison of outcomes of endoscopic ear surgery with microsurgery for cholesteatoma: A prospective study of 91 cases with three-year follow-up. Clin Otolaryngol. 2022;47:197-202. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 5] [Article Influence: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
12. | Baisakhiya N, Deshmukh P, Patil K. Evaluation of different graft material in type 1 tympanoplasty. Indian J Otol. 2014;20:106. [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 6] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 6] [Article Influence: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
13. | Jalali MM, Motasaddi M, Kouhi A, Dabiri S, Soleimani R. Comparison of cartilage with temporalis fascia tympanoplasty: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Laryngoscope. 2017;127:2139-2148. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 60] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 67] [Article Influence: 8.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
14. | Cavaliere M, Panetti M, Iemma M. Tragal cartilage shield tympanoplasty: our technique and results in 612 cases. Acta Otolaryngol. 2014;134:890-897. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 6] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 7] [Article Influence: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
15. | Pap I, Tóth I, Gede N, Hegyi P, Szakács Z, Koukkoullis A, Révész P, Harmat K, Németh A, Lujber L, Gerlinger I, Bocskai T, Varga G, Szanyi I. Endoscopic type I tympanoplasty is as effective as microscopic type I tympanoplasty but less invasive-A meta-analysis. Clin Otolaryngol. 2019;44:942-953. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 19] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 16] [Article Influence: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
16. | Fahy R, Corbett M, Crotty T, Chadwick L, Keogh I. Totally endoscopic cartilage tympanoplasty: a hierarchical task analysis. J Laryngol Otol. 2023;137:1326-1333. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
17. | Jyothi AC, Shrikrishna BH, Kulkarni NH, Kumar A. Endoscopic Myringoplasty Versus Microscopic Myringoplasty in Tubotympanic CSOM: A Comparative Study of 120 Cases. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;69:357-362. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 20] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 22] [Article Influence: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
18. | Shakya D, Kc A, Nepal A. A Comparative Study of Endoscopic versus Microscopic Cartilage Type I Tympanoplasty. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;24:e80-e85. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 11] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 13] [Article Influence: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
19. | Cleere EF, Corbett M, Crotty TJ, Divilly J, Keogh IJ. Trans-canal tragal cartilage myringoplasty; a comparative analysis of endoscopic and microscopic approaches. Surgeon. 2023;21:e42-e47. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
20. | Hsu YC, Kuo CL, Huang TC. A retrospective comparative study of endoscopic and microscopic Tympanoplasty. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;47:44. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 29] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 34] [Article Influence: 5.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
21. | Plodpai Y. Endoscopic vs Microscopic Overlay Tympanoplasty for Correcting Large Tympanic Membrane Perforations: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;159:879-886. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 28] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 29] [Article Influence: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
22. | Lade H, Choudhary SR, Vashishth A. Endoscopic vs microscopic myringoplasty: a different perspective. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;271:1897-1902. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 69] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 70] [Article Influence: 6.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
23. | Gosain A, DiPietro LA. Aging and wound healing. World J Surg. 2004;28:321-326. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 589] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 557] [Article Influence: 27.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
24. | Ashcroft GS, Mills SJ, Ashworth JJ. Ageing and wound healing. Biogerontology. 2002;3:337-345. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 201] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 208] [Article Influence: 9.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
25. | Chang CY, Gray LC. Pressed scar tissue for tympanic membrane grafting in revision tympanoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005;132:30-36. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 8] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 6] [Article Influence: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
26. | Faramarzi M, Shishegar M, Tofighi SR, Sharouny H, Rajagopalan R. Comparison of Grafting Success Rate and Hearing Outcomes between Primary and Revision Tympanoplasties. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol. 2019;31:11-17. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
27. | Kotecha B, Fowler S, Topham J. Myringoplasty: a prospective audit study. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 1999;24:126-129. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 65] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 69] [Article Influence: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
28. | Phillips JS, Yung MW, Nunney I. Myringoplasty outcomes in the UK. J Laryngol Otol. 2015;129:860-864. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 19] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 22] [Article Influence: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
29. | Wei PY, Chu CH, Wang MC. Clinical outcome of revision cartilage tympanoplasty. Ear Nose Throat J. 2018;97:349-361. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
30. | Dündar R, Kulduk E, Soy FK, Aslan M, Hanci D, Muluk NB, Cingi C. Endoscopic versus microscopic approach to type 1 tympanoplasty in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;78:1084-1089. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 78] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 78] [Article Influence: 7.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |