MedElevator
Войти в исследования The Journal of laryngology and otology · 2026
Perichondrial flap fold versus raising the tympanomeatal flap for repairing large marginal perforation: semi-random control trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеКонтролируемое клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang Shen, Yang Sen, Zhou Fei
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the graft outcomes between endoscopic cartilage inlay myringoplasty with free perichondrial flap fold technique vs. raising the tympanomeatal flap technique for repairing large marginal perforation.
METHODS: A total of 61 ears with marginal perforation were recruited and allocated to free perichondrial flap fold (n = 31) group and raising the tympanomeatal flap (n = 30) group using semi-random control trial. The graft success rate, hearing gain, operation time, visual analog scale score and post-operative complications were compared between the groups at six months.
RESULTS: The mean operation time was 26.4 plus-or-minus 3.1 minutes in the free perichondrial flap fold group and 50.7 plus-or-minus 2.6 minutes in the raising the tympanomeatal flap group (p < 0.001). The graft success rate was 93.5 per cent in the free perichondrial flap fold group and 96.7 per cent in the raising the tympanomeatal flap group (p = 0.977) at post-operative six months.
CONCLUSION: The free perichondrial flap fold technique may achieve similar graft success rate and hearing improvement as raising the tympanomeatal flap technique for repairing large marginal perforations; however, it is simple, time-saving and minimal invasive technique.
METHODS: A total of 61 ears with marginal perforation were recruited and allocated to free perichondrial flap fold (n = 31) group and raising the tympanomeatal flap (n = 30) group using semi-random control trial. The graft success rate, hearing gain, operation time, visual analog scale score and post-operative complications were compared between the groups at six months.
RESULTS: The mean operation time was 26.4 plus-or-minus 3.1 minutes in the free perichondrial flap fold group and 50.7 plus-or-minus 2.6 minutes in the raising the tympanomeatal flap group (p < 0.001). The graft success rate was 93.5 per cent in the free perichondrial flap fold group and 96.7 per cent in the raising the tympanomeatal flap group (p = 0.977) at post-operative six months.
CONCLUSION: The free perichondrial flap fold technique may achieve similar graft success rate and hearing improvement as raising the tympanomeatal flap technique for repairing large marginal perforations; however, it is simple, time-saving and minimal invasive technique.