Tao Yang1,2, Xuewen Wu1,2, Xiaofei Peng3, Yanni Zhang1,2, Shaobing Xie1,2, Hong Sun1,2. 1. a Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery , Xiangya Hospital, Central South University , Changsha , Hunan , PR China. 2. b Province Key Laboratory of Otolaryngology Critical Diseases , Xiangya Hospital, Central South University , Changsha , Hunan , PR China. 3. c Department of Rheumatology and Immunology , The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University , Changsha , Hunan , PR China.
Abstract
CONCLUSIONS: Tympanoplasty using cartilage grafts has a better graft take rate than that using temporalis fascia grafts. There are no significant differences between cartilage grafts and temporalis fascia grafts for hearing outcomes. Contrary to the sliced cartilage sub-group, full-thickness cartilage grafts generate better hearing outcomes than temporalis fascia grafts. OBJECTIVE: Tympanic membrane perforation can cause middle ear relapsing infection and lead to hearing damage. Various techniques have been applied in order to reconstruct the tympanic membrane. Recently, cartilage grafts and temporalis fascia grafts have been widely used for tympanic membrane closure. A systemic review and meta-analysis was carried out based on published retrospective trials that investigated the efficacy of cartilage grafts and temporalis fascia grafts in type 1 tympanoplasty. Both graft take rates and mean AIR-BONE-GAP gains were analyzed. METHODS: Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase were systematically searched. After a scientific investigation, we extracted the relevant data following our selection criteria. Odds ratio (OR) of graft take rates and mean difference (MD) of AIR-BONE-GAP gains were calculated within 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Eight eligible articles with 915 patients were reviewed. The pooled OR for graft take rate was 3.11 (95% CI =1.94-5.00; p = 0.43) and the difference between the two groups was significant, which means that the cartilage grafts group got a better graft take rate than the temporalis fascia grafts group. The pooled MD for mean AIR-BONE-GAP gain was 1.92 (95% CI = -0.12-3.95; p < 0.000 01) and the difference was not significant. However, in the full thickness cartilage grafts sub-group, the pooled MD for mean AIR-BONE-GAP gains was 2.56 (95% CI =1.02-4.10; p = 0.14) and the difference was significant, which means that the full thickness cartilage grafts sub-group got a better hearing outcome than the temporalis fascia grafts group. On the contrary, the pooled MD of sliced cartilage grafts sub-group was 0.12 (95% CI = -0.44-0.69; p = 0.61) and there was no significant difference between the sliced cartilage grafts and temporalis fascia group.
CONCLUSIONS: Tympanoplasty using cartilage grafts has a better graft take rate than that using temporalis fascia grafts. There are no significant differences between cartilage grafts and temporalis fascia grafts for hearing outcomes. Contrary to the sliced cartilage sub-group, full-thickness cartilage grafts generate better hearing outcomes than temporalis fascia grafts. OBJECTIVE: Tympanic membrane perforation can cause middle ear relapsing infection and lead to hearing damage. Various techniques have been applied in order to reconstruct the tympanic membrane. Recently, cartilage grafts and temporalis fascia grafts have been widely used for tympanic membrane closure. A systemic review and meta-analysis was carried out based on published retrospective trials that investigated the efficacy of cartilage grafts and temporalis fascia grafts in type 1 tympanoplasty. Both graft take rates and mean AIR-BONE-GAP gains were analyzed. METHODS: Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase were systematically searched. After a scientific investigation, we extracted the relevant data following our selection criteria. Odds ratio (OR) of graft take rates and mean difference (MD) of AIR-BONE-GAP gains were calculated within 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Eight eligible articles with 915 patients were reviewed. The pooled OR for graft take rate was 3.11 (95% CI =1.94-5.00; p = 0.43) and the difference between the two groups was significant, which means that the cartilage grafts group got a better graft take rate than the temporalis fascia grafts group. The pooled MD for mean AIR-BONE-GAP gain was 1.92 (95% CI = -0.12-3.95; p < 0.000 01) and the difference was not significant. However, in the full thickness cartilage grafts sub-group, the pooled MD for mean AIR-BONE-GAP gains was 2.56 (95% CI =1.02-4.10; p = 0.14) and the difference was significant, which means that the full thickness cartilage grafts sub-group got a better hearing outcome than the temporalis fascia grafts group. On the contrary, the pooled MD of sliced cartilage grafts sub-group was 0.12 (95% CI = -0.44-0.69; p = 0.61) and there was no significant difference between the sliced cartilage grafts and temporalis fascia group.