Comparison of cartilage graft and fascia in type 1 tympanoplasty: systematic review and meta-analysis. (1st November 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Yang, Tao; Wu, Xuewen; Peng, Xiaofei; Zhang, Yanni; Xie, Shaobing; Sun, Hong
• Is Part Of: Acta oto-laryngologica. Volume 136:Number 11(2016)
• Page Start: 1085
• Page End: 1090
• Publication Date: 2016-11-01
• Subjects: Cartilage -- fascia -- hearing loss -- tympanic membrane -- tympanoplasty; Otolaryngology -- Periodicals; Ear -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Throat -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Otolaryngology -- Electronic Resources; Otorhinolaryngologic Diseases; 617.8
• DOI: 10.1080/00016489.2016.1195013
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0001-6489

Abstract

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.