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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
