Auris, nasus, larynx · 2018
Comparison of clinical outcomes between butterfly inlay cartilage tympanoplasty and conventional underlay cartilage tympanoplasty.
Сравнительное 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.
Kim Min Bum, Park Jin-A, Suh Michelle J, Song Chan Il
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of butterfly inlay cartilage tympanoplasty and compare it with conventional underlay cartilage tympanoplasty in terms of success rate and hearing outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 35 patients (36 ears) who underwent butterfly inlay cartilage tympanoplasty (inlay group, 23 ears of 22 patients) or conventional underlay cartilage tympanoplasty (underlay group, 13 ears). The anatomical success rate and hearing outcomes were analysed.
RESULTS: Re-perforation occurred in 2 cases (8.7%) in the inlay group and 3 (23.1%) in the underlay group. One patient in the inlay group developed a serious infection, and one in the underlay group developed massive granulation of the tympanic membrane. In the inlay group, the air-bone gap (ABG) decreased from 19.9 (±12.6) dB HL preoperatively to 13.8 (±11.3) dB HL postoperatively (p=0.047), in the underlay group, it decreased from 23.5 (±15.8) dB HL to 18.3 (±20.6) dB HL. Regarding improvement in ABG, the difference between the group was not statistically significant (p=0.968).
CONCLUSION: Butterfly inlay cartilage tympanoplasty is comparable with conventional underlay cartilage tympanoplasty in both anatomic and audiological success rates. Owing to its simplicity, shorter operation time, and rapid patient recovery, butterfly inlay cartilage tympanoplasty could be considered a favourable surgical option.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 35 patients (36 ears) who underwent butterfly inlay cartilage tympanoplasty (inlay group, 23 ears of 22 patients) or conventional underlay cartilage tympanoplasty (underlay group, 13 ears). The anatomical success rate and hearing outcomes were analysed.
RESULTS: Re-perforation occurred in 2 cases (8.7%) in the inlay group and 3 (23.1%) in the underlay group. One patient in the inlay group developed a serious infection, and one in the underlay group developed massive granulation of the tympanic membrane. In the inlay group, the air-bone gap (ABG) decreased from 19.9 (±12.6) dB HL preoperatively to 13.8 (±11.3) dB HL postoperatively (p=0.047), in the underlay group, it decreased from 23.5 (±15.8) dB HL to 18.3 (±20.6) dB HL. Regarding improvement in ABG, the difference between the group was not statistically significant (p=0.968).
CONCLUSION: Butterfly inlay cartilage tympanoplasty is comparable with conventional underlay cartilage tympanoplasty in both anatomic and audiological success rates. Owing to its simplicity, shorter operation time, and rapid patient recovery, butterfly inlay cartilage tympanoplasty could be considered a favourable surgical option.