Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:20:56.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Myringoplasty outcomes in the UK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 August 2015

J S Phillips ,
M W Yung  and
I Nunney
J S Phillips*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK
M W Yung
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Ipswich Hospital, University of East Anglia, UK
I Nunney
Affiliation:
Norwich Clinical Trials Unit, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr John S Phillips, Department of Otolaryngology, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Colney Lane, Norwich NR4 7UY, UK Fax: 01603 287288 E-mail: john.phillips@mac.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

To determine the outcome of myringoplasty as undertaken by ENT surgeons in the UK, and to assess the current systems available for providing national outcome data.

Methods:

A prospective national multicentre audit was conducted involving multiple hospitals throughout the UK. Participants consisted of ENT surgeons practising in the UK.

Results:

Data were prospectively collected over a three-year period between 1 March 2006 and 1 March 2009 using the web-based Common Otology Database. In total, 33 surgeons provided valid and complete data for 495 procedures. The overall closure rate for myringoplasty was 89.5 per cent. The average hearing gain for successful primary myringoplasties was 9.14 dB (standard deviation = 10.62). The Common Otology Database provided an effective platform for capturing outcome data.

Conclusion:

Myringoplasty is a safe and effective procedure in the UK. With the introduction of revalidation by the General Medical Council, participation in national audits will be mandatory in the future. This study demonstrates that a web-based audit tool would be suitable for performing such audits.

Keywords

MyringoplastyTympanoplastyOutcomes AssessmentHearing
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 129 , Issue 9 , September 2015 , pp. 860 - 864
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Kotecha, B, Fowler, S, Topham, J. Myringoplasty: a prospective audit study. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1999;24:126–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Ryan, RM, Brown, PM, Cameron, JM, Fowler, SM, Grant, HR, Topham, JH. Royal College of Surgeons comparative ENT audit 1990. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1993;18:541–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Yung, M, Neumann, C, Vowler, SL. A longitudinal study on pediatric myringoplasty. Otol Neurotol 2007;28:353–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Aggarwal, R, Saeed, SR, Green, KJ. Myringoplasty. J Laryngol Otol 2006;120:429–32CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Gersdorff, M, Garrin, P, Decat, M, Juantegui, M. Myringoplasty: long-term results in adults and children. Am J Otol 1995;16:532–5Google ScholarPubMed
6Caylan, R, Titiz, A, Fallcioni, M, De Donato, G, Russo, A, Taibah, A et al. Myringoplasty in children: factors influencing surgical outcome. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;118:709–13Google ScholarPubMed
7Lin, YC, Wang, WH, Weng, HH, Lin, YC. Predictors of surgical and hearing long-term results for inlay cartilage tympanoplasty. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2011;137:215–19CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Uguz, MZ, Onal, K, Kazikdas, KC, Onal, A. The influence of smoking on success of tympanoplasty measured by serum cotinine analysis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2008;265:513–16CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Becvarovski, Z, Kartush, JM. Smoking and tympanoplasty: implications for prognosis and the Middle Ear Risk Index (MERI). Laryngoscope 2001;111:1806–11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Lee, P, Kelly, G, Mills, RP. Myringoplasty: does the size of the perforation matter? Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2002;27:331–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Scally, CM, Allen, L, Kerr, AG. The anterior hitch method of tympanic membrane repair. Ear Nose Throat J 1996;75:244–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Mohamad, SH, Khan, I, Hussain, SS. Is cartilage tympanoplasty more effective than fascia tympanoplasty? A systematic review. Otol Neurotol 2012;33:699–705CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Yung, M, Vivekanandan, S, Smith, P. Randomized study comparing fascia and cartilage grafts in myringoplasty. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2011;120:535–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Palva, T, Ramsay, H. Myringoplasty and tympanoplasty – results related to training and experience. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1995;20:329–35CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Halik, JJ, Smyth, GD. Long-term results of tympanic membrane repair. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1988;98:162–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Department of Health. Medical Revalidation – Principles and Next Steps. In: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107105354/http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_086431.pdf [7 July 2015]Google Scholar
17Yung, M, Gjuric, M, Haeusler, R, Van de Heyning, PH, Martin, C, Swan, IR et al. An international otology database. Otol Neurotol 2005;26:1087–92CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Phillips, JS, Haggard, M, Yung, MW. A new patient-reported outcome measure for chronic otitis media (COMQ-12): development and initial validation. Otol Neurotol 2014;35:454–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Department of Health. Liberating the NHS: Transparency in Outcomes – A Framework for the NHS. In: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107105354/http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_117591.pdf [7 July 2015]Google Scholar