Hostname: page-component-5f56664f6-w4vgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-07T23:59:41.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is external ear canal packing necessary following underlay myringoplasty?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2024

Yajian Shen  and
Zhengcai Lou Open the ORCID record for Zhengcai Lou [Opens in a new window]
Yajian Shen
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Yiwu Central Hospital, 699 Jiangdong Road, Yiwu City, ZP, China
Zhengcai Lou*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Yiwu Central Hospital, 699 Jiangdong Road, Yiwu City, ZP, China
*
Corresponding author: Zhengcai Lou; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate graft success, hearing improvement, and complications following perichondrium–cartilage underlay myringoplasty without external auditory canal packing.

Methods

In this prospective study, we examined 37 ears of 37 patients with large perforations who underwent endoscopic perichondrium–cartilage underlay myringoplasty without external auditory canal packing. Patients were followed up for six months.

Results

At one week after the surgery, the graft was in situ in 35 (94.6 per cent) ears. At 2–3 weeks post-surgery, among the 35 ears without infection, the graft was in situ in 29 (82.9 per cent) ears, and the graft was bulging in 6 (17.1 per cent) ears. At six months post-surgery, the graft success rate was 94.6 per cent (35 of 37 ears). No graft lateralisation or graft medialisation was encountered during the follow-up period.

Conclusion

The absence of external auditory canal packing did not affect the graft success or hearing improvement following underlay myringoplasty. Thus, external auditory canal packing does not appear to be necessary for underlay myringoplasty.

Keywords

myringoplastyendoscopecartilageexternal auditory canal
Type
Main Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , First View , pp. 1 - 5
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED.

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Zhengcai Lou takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Holzer, F. The fate of gelatin film in the middle ear. Arch Otolaryngol 1973;98:Google Scholar
Javed, F, Clark, M. The non-stick triple wick; ear canal packing after middle ear surgery. Clin Otolaryngol 2014;39:Google Scholar
Renard, L, Aussedat, C, Schleich, M, tran Trinh, T, Bakhos, D. Evaluation of post-operative practices regarding packing of the external auditory canal. J Int Adv Otol 2022;18:Google Scholar
Bao, JW, Zhan, KY, Wick, CC. Comparison of endoscopic underlay and over-under tympanoplasty techniques for type I tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 2022;7:Google Scholar
Zeitoun, H, Sandhu, GS, Kuo, M, Macnamara, M. A randomized prospective trial to compare four different ear packs following permeatal middle ear surgery. J Laryngol Otol 1998;112:Google Scholar
Nakhla, V, Takwoingi, YM, Sinha, A. Myringoplasty: a comparison of bismuth iodoform paraffin paste gauze pack and tri-adcortyl ointment ear dressing. J Laryngol Otol 2007;121:Google Scholar
Borgstein, J, de Zwart, G, Bruce, IA. Ear packing after ear surgery: is it really necessary?. J Laryngol Otol 2008;122:Google Scholar
Sakagami, M, Yuasa, R, Yuasa, Y. Simple underlay myringoplasty. J Laryngol Otol 2007;121:Google Scholar
Minoda, R, Haruno, T, Miwa, T, Kumai, Y, Sanuki, T, Yumoto, E. External auditory canal stenting utilizing a useful rolled, tapered silastic sheet (RTSS) post middle ear surgery. Auris Nasus Larynx 2010;37:Google Scholar
Meghji, S, Wahid, W, Schechter, E, Neumann, C, Trinidade, A. A safe and comparable alternative to BIPP packing following tympanoplasty for tympanic membrane perforation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2021;278:Google Scholar
Saraf, A, Manhas, M, Jamwal, PS, Begh, RA, Kalsotra, P. Comparative study of overlay and underlay techniques of myringoplasty – our experience. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2022;74(suppl 1):Google Scholar
Khawaja, M, Sajid, T, Aziz, T, Ashfaq, U, Khan, A. Comparison of graft uptake by underlay and overlay technique in myringoplasty. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2020;32(suppl 1):S640–3Google Scholar
Erden, B, Gülşen, S. Evaluation of surgical and audiological outcomes of push-through myringoplasty and underlay cartilage tympanoplasty in repairing anterior tympanic membrane perforations. J Craniofac Surg 2020;31:Google Scholar
Choi, SW, Kim, H, Na, HS, Lee, JW, Lee, S, Oh, SJ, et al. Comparison of medial underlay and lateral underlay endoscopic type I tympanoplasty for anterior perforations of the tympanic membrane. Otol Neurotol 2021;42:Google Scholar
Shakya, D, Nepal, A. Total endoscopic perichondrium reinforced cartilage myringoplasty for anterior perforation. Ear Nose Throat J 2022;101:Google Scholar
Erbele, ID, Fink, MR, Mankekar, G, Son, LS, Mehta, R, Arriaga, MA. Over-under cartilage tympanoplasty: technique, results and a call for improved reporting. J Laryngol Otol 2020;134:Google Scholar
Lou, Z, Lou, Z, Chen, Z. Effect of packing versus no packing in transperforation myringoplasty for chronic tympanic membrane perforations. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2023;169:Google Scholar
Lou, Z, Lou, Z, Lv, T, Chen, Z. Comparison of endoscopic modified and typical myringoplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Laryngoscope 2023;133:Google Scholar
Lou, Z, Lou, Z, Jin, K, Sun, J, Chen, Z. Excising or preserving perforation margins in endoscopic transtympanic cartilage myringoplasty does not affect surgical success. Clin Otolaryngol 2022;47:Google Scholar
Zahnert, T, Hüttenbrink, KB, Mürbe, D, Bornitz, M. Experimental investigations of the use of cartilage in tympanic membrane reconstruction. Am J Otol 2000;21:Google Scholar
Mürbe, D, Zahnert, T, Bornitz, M, Hüttenbrink, KB. Acoustic properties of different cartilage reconstruction techniques of the tympanic membrane. Laryngoscope 2002;112:Google Scholar
Xing, C, Liu, H, Li, G, Li, J, Li, X. Type 1 tympanoplasty in patients with large perforations: comparison of temporalis fascia, partial-thickness cartilage, and full-thickness cartilage. J Int Med Res 2020;48:Google Scholar
Atef, A, Talaat, N, Fathi, A, Mosleh, M, Safwat, S. Effect of the thickness of the cartilage disk on the hearing results after perichondrium/cartilage island flap tympanoplasty. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2007;69:Google Scholar
Vadiya, S, Bhatt, S. Comparison of partial thickness and full thickness tragal cartilage graft during modified cartilage shield tympanoplasty for type I procedures. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2016;68:Google Scholar
Parelkar, K, Thorawade, V, Marfatia, H, Shere, D. Endoscopic cartilage tympanoplasty: full thickness and partial thickness tragal graft. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2020;86:Google Scholar