Kliniğimizde Endoskopik Timpanoplasti Yapılan Hastaların Geriye Dönük Sonuçlarının Değerlendirilmesi: Tek Merkez Deneyimi

Year 2021, Volume: 18 Issue: 2, 318 - 321, 27.08.2021

İsmail İynen , Ali Akbaş , Müslüm Ayral , Mustafa Çoban

https://doi.org/10.35440/hutfd.752677

Abstract

AMAÇ: Araştırmamız kliniğimizde Endoskopik Timpanoplastiyapılan hastaların geriye dönük verilerinin incelenmesi amacıylayapıldı.
MATERYAL VE METOD: Bu çalışma Ocak 2018 ten Haziran 2019’a kadar Harran Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Kulak Burun Boğaz hastalıkları kliniğinde endoskopik timpanoplasti yapılan vetakip edilen 60 hastanın verilerinin retrospektif olarak incelendiği birçalışmadır. Cerrahi sonrası en az 3 ay süreyle takiplere gelen hastalarçalışmaya dahil edildi.Takiplere 3 aydan az takiplere gelen, endoskopik dışıyöntemle opere edilen, verilerine ulaşılmayan hastalar çalışma dışıbırakıldı. Hastaların Pre-op ve post op yapılan odyometrik değerleri karşılaştırıldı. Hastaların kontrollerinde greft başarısına bakıldı.
BULGULAR:
Endoskopik timpanoplasti yaptığımız 60 hastanın 25’i erkek 35’i kadındı. Ameliyat öncesi hava kemik aralığı ortalaması 21.5±9.40 dB iken ameliyat sonrası takiplerde yapılan odyometride hava kemik aralığı ortalaması 13.1±7.68 dB olarak bulundu. Greft başarı oranı %80 (48 hasta) idi. Hastaların %20’sinde (12 hasta) greftte açıklık mevcuttu. Hastaların 12(%20) tanesi marjinal perfore, 6 (%10) tanesi total perfore,42 (%70) tanesi ise santral perfore idi. Hastaların 10 (%6)’ununda kemik çimento ile rekonstrüksiyon gerekti 3(%5)’ünde ise ossiküler protez uygulandığı tespit edildi.

SONUÇ: Sonuçta mikroskopla kıyaslandığında endoskopik timpanoplastibenzer başarı sonuçlarına sahip olup daha az invaziv ve hasta açısından daha konforlu olduğu saptandı.

Keywords

Timpanoplasti, endoskopik, kemikçik zincir rekonstrüksiyonu

Supporting Institution

Yok.

Project Number

-

Thanks

-

Evaluation of Retrospective Results of Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Tympanoplasty in Our Clinic: Single Center Experience

Abstract

Background: Our research was conducted to examine the retrospective data of patients who underwent Endoscopic Tympanoplasty in our clinic.
Materials and Methods: This study is a retrospective study of the data of 60 patients who underwent endoscopic tympanoplasty and followed up in Harran University Faculty of Medicine Otorhinolaryngology clinic from January 2018 to June 2019. Patients who were followed for at least 3 months after surgery were included in the study. Patients who were operated with a non-endoscopic method and whose data were not available were excluded from the study. Pre-op and post-op audiometric values of patients were compared. The success of the graft was checked in the patients' controls.
Results: Of the 60 patients we underwent endoscopic tympanoplasty, 25 were male and 35 were female. While preoperative air bone gap mean was 21.5±9.40 dB, the mean air bone gap was 13.1±7.68 dB in the audiometry performed during postoperative follow-up. The graft success rate was 80% (48 patients). In 20% of the patients (12 patients) there was a graft patency. 12 (20%) of the patients were marginal perforated, 6 (10%) were total perforated, 42 (70%) were central perforated. Bone cement reconstruction was required in 10 (6%) patients and ossicular prosthesis was applied in 3 (5%) patients.
Conclusion: As a result, when compared with microscope, endoscopic tympanoplasty has similar success results and it was found to be less invasive and more comfortable for the patient.

Key Words: Tympanoplasty, Endoscopic, Ossicular chain reconstruction,

Project Number

-

References

• 1. Jako GJ. Postauralversusendauralexposure in tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope1967;77:2022-31. 2. Halim A, Borgstein J. Pediatricmyringoplasty: postauralversustransmeatalapproach. Int J PediatricOtorhinolaryngol2009;73:1580-3. 3. Tarabichi M. Endoscopicmanagement of acquiredcholesteatoma. Am J Otol1997;18:544-9. 4. Kakehata S, Watanabe T, Ito T, Kubota T, Furukawa T. Extension of indicationsfortranscanalendoscopicearsurgeryusing an ultrasonic bone curetteforcholesteatomas. OtolNeurotol2014;35:101-7 5. Patil RN. Endoscopictympanoplasty-Definitelyadvantageous. Asian J EarNoseThroat2003;25:9-13. 6. Marchioni D, Alicandri-Ciufelli M, Molteni G, Genovese E, Presutti L. Endoscopictympanoplasty in patientswithatticretractionpocketsLaringoskop 2010; 120: 1847-1855 , 7. Marchioni D, Mattioli F, Alicandri-Ciufelli M, Presutti L. Transcanalendoscopicapproachtothesinustympani: a clinicalreport. OtolNeurotol 2009; 30: 758-765 8. Mohindra S, Panda NK. Earsurgerywithoutmicroscope; is it possible. Indian J OtolaryngolHeadNeckSurg2010;62:138-41. 9. Furukawa T, Watanabe T, Ito T, Kubota T, Kakehata S. Feasibilityandadvantages of transcanalendoscopicmyringoplasty. OtolNeurotol 2014; 35: e140-E145. 10. Himani L, Santosha RC, Ashish V. Endoskopik ve mikroskopikmiringoplasti: Farkl ı bir bakış açısı. EurArchOtorhinolaryngol 2014; 271: 1897-1902. 11. Dundar R, Bulut H, Güler OK, Yükkaldiran A, Demirtaş Y, Iynen I et al. Oval WindowTemperatureChanges in an EndoscopicStapedectomy. J CraniofacSurg. 2015; 26(5):1704-8. 12. GarciaL B, Moussalem GF, Andrade JS, Mangussi-Gomes J, Cruz OLM, Penido NO. Transcanal endoscopic myringoplasty: a caseseries in a universitycenter. Otorhinolaryngol 2016; 82: 321-325. 35. 13. Braz J Ayache S. Cartilagemiringoplasty: endoscopictranscanalprocedureEurArchivesOtorhinolaryngol 2013; 270: 853-860. 14. Nardone M, Sommerville R, Bowman J, Danesi G. Myringoplasty in simplechronicotitismedia: criticalanalysis of long-termresults in a 1,000-adult patientseries. OtolNeurotol 2012; 33: 48-53. 15.Phillips JS, Yung MW, Nunney I. Myringoplastyoutcomes in the UK. J LaryngolOtol 2015; 129: 860-864.