Hostname: page-component-65f69f4695-pm9fr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-26T19:14:10.035Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative analysis of permeatal and post-aural approaches in tympanoplasty: patient perspectives and quality of life

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 April 2025

Waqas Jamil Open the ORCID record for Waqas Jamil [Opens in a new window] ,
Haissan Iftikhar ,
Farah Naz  and
Sanjiv Kumar Bhimrao
Waqas Jamil*
Affiliation:
ENT Department, University Hospital North Midlands NHS Foundation Trust, UK
Haissan Iftikhar
Affiliation:
University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
Farah Naz
Affiliation:
Dow University of Health and Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan
Sanjiv Kumar Bhimrao
Affiliation:
ENT Department, University Hospital North Midlands NHS Foundation Trust, UK
*
Corresponding author: Waqas Jamil; Email: dr.waqasjamil@yahoo.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to compare permeatal and post-aural tympanoplasty techniques, focusing on scar perception, post-operative symptoms, return to work and quality of life.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted in a secondary care hospital, with 54 patients undergoing tympanoplasty via permeatal or post-aural approaches. Outcome measures reported were scar perception, post-operative symptoms, quality of life using the Chronic Otitis Media Benefit Inventory score and time off work reported by patients.

Results

Scar perception was favourable in both groups. In the post-aural group, 96 per cent of patients were content with their scar, while 83 per cent in the permeatal group were unconcerned about having a scar behind the ear. Long-term post-operative symptoms, return to work and quality of life measures were comparable. Chronic Otitis Media Benefit Inventory scores showed no significant difference between techniques.

Conclusion

Patient experiences and perspectives were similar between permeatal and post-aural techniques. Surgeons should consider individual patient factors and outcomes when selecting a surgical approach.

Keywords

tympanoplastyquality of lifepatient preferencepatient-centered carereturn to work

Information

Type
Main Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , First View , pp. 1 - 4
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED.

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Waqas Jamil takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Brar, S, Watters, C, Winters, R. Tympanoplasty. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022Google Scholar
Rahman, M, Atikuzzaman, K. Comparative study of outcome of tympanoplasty by postauricular and permeatal approach. AIMDR 2022;8:205–11Google Scholar
Phillips, JS, Haggard, M, Spencer, H, Yung, M. The Chronic Otitis Media Benefit Inventory (COMBI): development and validation of a dynamic quality of life questionnaire for chronic ear disease. Otol Neurotol 2017;38:701–7Google Scholar
Kara, H, Doruk, C, Celik, M, Polat, B, Topsakal, V, Orhan, KS. Translation and validation of Chronic Otitis Media Benefit Inventory (COMBI) in Turkish language. Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2020;58:24–9Google Scholar
Barrett, G, Koecher, S, Ronan, N, Whinney, D. Patient satisfaction with postaural incision site. Int J Otolaryngol 2014:2014:851980Google Scholar
Inwood, JL, Wallace, HC, Clarke, SE. Endaural or postaural incision for myringoplasty: does it make a difference to the patient? Clin Otolaryngol 2003;28:396–8Google Scholar
Khan, TH, Rana, AH, Malik, SA. Comparative study between post-aural and per-meatal approach type-1 tympanoplasty. TPMJ 2021;28:125–30Google Scholar
Shinwari, WD, Ali, A, Mustafa, SR, Mushahid, U, Jamil, M, Khan, A. To compare the graft uptake in permeatal versus postaural approaches in myringoplasty. PJMHS 2021;15:3450–1Google Scholar