Comparison of Inlay Cartilage Butterfly and Underlay Temporal Fascia Tympanoplasty

4Citations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective: To systematically review the results of inlay cartilage butterfly tympanoplasty and standard underlay temporal fascia tympanoplasty for anatomic and functional end points. Data Sources: PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and Virtual Health Library (VHL/Lilacs) databases were searched from inception through April 2, 2021. No restrictions on language, publication year, or publication status were applied. Review Methods: The meta-analysis included data from articles that met inclusion criteria and were extracted by 2 authors independently. The PRISMA statement was followed. Risk of Bias 2.0 and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess risk of bias. The primary outcome was tympanic membrane closure rate. The secondary outcome was improvement of the air-bone gap. Results: Ten studies were included, 9 cohort studies and 1 randomized clinical trial, with 577 patients. The graft take rate was 82.8% in the butterfly cartilage inlay tympanoplasty group and 85.2% in the temporal fascia underlay tympanoplasty group (relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.93-1.11; I2 = 42%, P =.08). The air-bone gap reduction ranged from 6.1 to 11.28 in the butterfly cartilage inlay group and from 5.2 to 12.66 in the temporal fascia underlay group, with a mean difference between groups of −2.08 (95% CI, −3.23 to −0.94; I2 = 58%, P =.04), favoring temporal fascia underlay. Conclusion: The 2 tympanoplasty techniques analyzed here produced similar results in terms of successful reconstruction of the tympanic membrane and reduction in the air-bone gap. Neither age nor follow-up length of time influenced outcomes.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Neto, J. F. L., Schuster, A. K., Lubianca, J. P. N., & Eavey, R. D. (2022, July 1). Comparison of Inlay Cartilage Butterfly and Underlay Temporal Fascia Tympanoplasty. OTO Open. SAGE Publications Inc. https://doi.org/10.1177/2473974X221108935

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free