Temporalis Fascia versus Tragal Mucoperichondrium Graft in Myringoplasty | ||||
| The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine | ||||
| Article 28, Volume 75, Issue 3, April 2019, Page 2521-2526 PDF (468.13 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/ejhm.2019.31079 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| Wael H. Abo Elwafa; Kamel S. Hammad; Ahmed S. Gad; Mohamed K. Ibrahium; Mohamed S. Khalil | ||||
| Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Background: Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) constitutes a major public health problem in children and adults in the developing world. It is an infection characterized by recurrent middle-ear discharge through a persistent tympanic membrane perforation. Objective: the aim of the present study is to compare the surgical and audiological results of temporalis fascia versus tragal perichondrium in myringoplasty Patient and Methods: a randomized prospective study concerned with 60 patients for whom myringoplasty was done. Patients were randomly assigned into two groups; in the first group temporalis fascia graft was used (30 patient) and tragal perichondrium graft was used in the second group (30 patients). Results: our study included 60 patients, 27 males and 33 females with a range from 19- 45 years. Surgical success rates for the first and second groups are 80% and 73.3%, respectively. There was 10.5 dB improvement in mean hearing threshold in fascia group, compared to 8.16 dB improvement in perichondrium group, giving an average of 9.33 dB improvement in mean hearing threshold of the total series. Conclusions: mean value of gain among temporalis fascia graft group was higher than tragal perichondrium graft group. There was statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding gain and no significant difference in surgical success rate between the two groups. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Temporalis Fascia; Perichondrium Myringoplasty | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 205 PDF Download: 498 |
||||
