OBJECTIVES: A lesser known after effect of harvesting temporalis fascia is the post-surgical craniofacial pain. The aim of the study was to evaluate this pain after tympanomastoid surgeries and the effectiveness of silastic sheet interpositioning to prevent this pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This pilot study that spanned one year, included patients who underwent tympanoplasty with or without mastoidectomy involving the harvesting of temporalis fascia. At the end of surgery, the wound was closed after silastic sheet was secured over the donor site in cases and without silastic sheet in controls. In the post-operative period, patients scored their temporal pain, tenderness and pain during opening of mouth and mastication on a visual analogue scale (VAS) on day 7, 15, 30 and 90. RESULTS: Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of the silastic group were lower than the control group on day 7 and 15 after surgery and the difference was statistically significant. In the control group, temporal pain and tenderness were 74% and 81% respectively on day 7. VAS scores of both groups decreased over time and were negligible after 3 months. There were no significant postoperative complications in either group and no reaction or rejection of silastic sheet in the cases. CONCLUSION: Post-surgical craniofacial pain secondary to the harvesting of temporalis fascia is observed in a majority of the patients. This novel technique involving silastic sheet interposition can decimate early post-operative temporal pain, tenderness and masticatory pain.
OBJECTIVES: A lesser known after effect of harvesting temporalis fascia is the post-surgical craniofacial pain. The aim of the study was to evaluate this pain after tympanomastoid surgeries and the effectiveness of silastic sheet interpositioning to prevent this pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This pilot study that spanned one year, included patients who underwent tympanoplasty with or without mastoidectomy involving the harvesting of temporalis fascia. At the end of surgery, the wound was closed after silastic sheet was secured over the donor site in cases and without silastic sheet in controls. In the post-operative period, patients scored their temporal pain, tenderness and pain during opening of mouth and mastication on a visual analogue scale (VAS) on day 7, 15, 30 and 90. RESULTS: Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of the silastic group were lower than the control group on day 7 and 15 after surgery and the difference was statistically significant. In the control group, temporal pain and tenderness were 74% and 81% respectively on day 7. VAS scores of both groups decreased over time and were negligible after 3 months. There were no significant postoperative complications in either group and no reaction or rejection of silastic sheet in the cases. CONCLUSION: Post-surgical craniofacial pain secondary to the harvesting of temporalis fascia is observed in a majority of the patients. This novel technique involving silastic sheet interposition can decimate early post-operative temporal pain, tenderness and masticatory pain.