Literature DB >> 33772610

Tympanic membrane perforations: a critical analysis of 1003 ears and proposal of a new classification based on pathogenesis.

Fábio André Selaimen1,2, Leticia Petersen Schmidt Rosito3,4, Mauricio Noschang Lopes da Silva3,4, Valentina de Souza Stanham5, Neil Sperling6, Sady Selaimen da Costa3,4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To present a large series ears with tympanic membrane perforations (TMP), to describe their characteristics, and to propose a new classification system based on the pathogenesis of TMP.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary university hospital with 1003 ears (792 consecutive patients with TMP in at least 1 ear). Otoendoscopy and audiometry were performed. Perforation measurements and their locations were digitally assessed. TMP with no suggestive signs of previous retraction were classified as Group 1, and those with possible previous retraction were classified as Group 2. Signs of retraction previous to the TMP, symptom length, perforation size and location, status of the contralateral ear, and hearing status were compared.
RESULTS: Group 1 comprised 63.5% of the included ears. Compared to Group 2, Group 1 presented a higher rate of central perforations (99% vs. 53%), a shorter duration of symptoms, smaller perforations (mean area: 18.5% vs. 41.4%), a higher rate of perforations in the anterior quadrants, better hearing levels (mean tritonal gap: 23.9 dB vs. 29.2 dB), and a lower rate of abnormal contralateral ears (28% vs. 66%).
CONCLUSION: The classification of TMP into two groups based on signs of previous retractions is feasible and indicates two different levels of disease severity. While the group without previous signs of retraction comprises ears with more limited disease, membranes with previous retraction seem to show more severe disease and, consequently, a less functional middle ear.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Central perforation; Contralateral ear; Marginal perforation; Perforation size; Tympanic membrane perforation; Videotoscopy

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33772610     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-021-06776-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0937-4477            Impact factor:   2.503


  15 in total

Review 1.  Fascia compared to one-piece composite cartilage-perichondrium grafting for tympanoplasty.

Authors:  Sarah A Lyons; Tanly Su; Linda E T Vissers; Jeroen P M Peters; Adriana L Smit; Wilko Grolman
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2015-11-06       Impact factor: 3.325

2.  A computational method for the semi-automated quantitative analysis of tympanic membrane perforations and tympanosclerosis.

Authors:  Eros Comunello; Aldo von Wangenheim; Vilson Heck Junior; Cristina Dornelles; Sady Selamen Costa
Journal:  Comput Biol Med       Date:  2009-07-29       Impact factor: 4.589

Review 3.  What is the optimal age to repair tympanic membrane perforations in pediatric patients?

Authors:  Marisa A Ryan; David M Kaylie
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2016-04-23       Impact factor: 3.325

Review 4.  Tubotympanic system functioning.

Authors:  C Martin; A Karkas; J-M Prades
Journal:  Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis       Date:  2017-04-29       Impact factor: 2.080

5.  Comparison of a microsliced modified chondroperichondrium shield graft and a temporalis fascia graft in primary type I tympanoplasty: A prospective randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Shambhu Nath Bhattacharya; Sudipta Pal; Somnath Saha; Prasanta Kumar Gure; Anupam Roy
Journal:  Ear Nose Throat J       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 1.697

6.  Tympanoplasty in children: A review of 91 cases.

Authors:  Joao Carlos Ribeiro; Cerejeira Rui; Silvestre Natercia; Romao Jose; Paiva Antonio
Journal:  Auris Nasus Larynx       Date:  2010-06-18       Impact factor: 1.863

7.  Functional correlations of tympanic membrane perforation size.

Authors:  Bob Lerut; Alain Pfammatter; Johnny Moons; Thomas Linder
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 2.311

Review 8.  Comparison of the efficacy of endoscopic tympanoplasty and microscopic tympanoplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Chih-Chieh Tseng; Ming-Tang Lai; Chia-Che Wu; Sheng-Po Yuan; Yi-Fang Ding
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2016-11-09       Impact factor: 3.325

Review 9.  EAONO/JOS Joint Consensus Statements on the Definitions, Classification and Staging of Middle Ear Cholesteatoma.

Authors:  Matthew Yung; Tetsuya Tono; Ewa Olszewska; Yutaka Yamamoto; Holger Sudhoff; Masafumi Sakagami; Jef Mulder; Hiromi Kojima; Armağan İncesulu; Franco Trabalzini; Nuri Özgirgin
Journal:  J Int Adv Otol       Date:  2017-01-06       Impact factor: 1.017

10.  The Role of Tympanic Membrane Retractions in Cholesteatoma Pathogenesis.

Authors:  Letícia Petersen Schmidt Rosito; Neil Sperling; Adriane Ribeiro Teixeira; Fábio André Selaimen; Sady Selaimen da Costa
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2018-02-21       Impact factor: 3.411

View more
  1 in total

1.  Temporal bone CT-based deep learning models for differential diagnosis of primary ciliary dyskinesia related otitis media and simple otitis media with effusion.

Authors:  Bo Duan; Zhuoyao Guo; Lili Pan; Zhengmin Xu; Wenxia Chen
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2022-07-15       Impact factor: 3.940

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.