Previous Page  143 / 232 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 143 / 232 Next Page
Page Background

(

p

= 0.35),

number

of

previous

tympanostomy

tubes

(

p

= 0.82),

otorrhea

in

the

6

months

prior

to

surgery

(

p

= 0.27),

previous

adenoidectomy

(

p

= 0.68)

or

previous

myringoplasty

(

p

= 0.77).

Pre-school

children

were

more

likely

to

have

a

contralateral

perforation

(

p

= 0.02).

There

was

a

total

of

69

children

with

craniofacial

disorders

including

36

children

with

cleft

palate,

24

children

with

Down

syndrome

and

9

children with

other

craniofacial

disorders

such

a

craniosynostosis.

The

anatomical

success

rate

in

children

with

craniofacial

disorders was

between

70.8%

and

88.9%

and was

not

statistically

different

between

the

different

subtypes

of

craniofa-

cial

disorders

or

compared

to

children without

any

craniofacial

disorder. While

children with

craniofacial

abnormalities

did

not

have

a

decreased

anatomical

success

rate,

they were

significantly

more

likely

to

develop

serous

otitis

media

and/or

require

tympanostomy

tubes

after

tympanoplasty

(

p

= 0.02).

The

number

of

children

with

other

relevant

comorbidities

such

as

chronic

sinusitis

(1),

environmental

allergies

(1)

or

asthma

(1)

was

not

sufficient

in

order

to

perform

a

subgroup

analysis.

Results

of

the

crude

analysis with

odds

ratio

of

the

different

complications

evaluated

per

age

group

and

their

associated

odds

ratio

is presented

in

Table 3

. There were no

significant differences

in

the

rate

of

any

of

the

complications

evaluated

for

the

different

age

groups.

There were

78

anatomical

failures with

a

perforation

noted

at

the end of

the

follow-up period of which 16

(20.5%) were

recurrent

perforations noted

after more

than

6 months

of

follow-

up and 62

(79.5%) were persistent perforations. Of

the 78 recurrent

or persistent perforations, 20 were pinpoint

(25.6%), 42 were

<

50%

and

2

were

>

50%

of

the

tympanic

membrane

area.

17.9%

of

perforations

were

the

same

size,

55.1%

were

smaller,

7.7%

were

larger

and

19.2% were

of

unknown

size.

The

two

residual

perforations

>

50% had been

<

50% at

the

initial

surgery. Seventeen

children

(6.0%)

underwent

a

tympanostomy

tube

insertion

post-

tympanoplasty

and

17

children

(6.4%)

developed

a

tympanic

membrane

cholesteatoma pearl

(12) or middle

ear

cholesteatoma

(5).

Fifty-six

children

underwent

revision

surgery

for

tympanic

membrane

perforation

(42)

or

cholesteatoma

(14).

Five

children

undergoing

revision surgery

for a

tympanic membrane perforation

underwent a concomitant mastoidectomy due

to chronic otorrhea.

First

revision

tympanoplasty

for

tympanic membrane

perforation

was

successful

in

20/37

(54.1%)

children,

unsuccessful

in

14/37

(37.8%)

children

and was

unknown

in

3/37

(8.1%)

children.

Hearing

results

are

shown

in

Tables

4

and

5

.

All

age

groups

had

significant

improvement

in

their

hearing

thresholds

post-

tympanoplasty

and

the

hearing

thresholds were

not

significantly

different between

the

three

age

groups. Children with

an

ongoing

perforation

after

the

initial

tympanoplasty

had

poorer

hearing

outcomes

than children with a successful tympanoplasty and had a

post-operative

SRT

of

21.0 dB

(

p

= 0.25)

and

a post-operative ABG

of

13.5 dB

(

p

= 0.02).

Logistic

regression

analysis

revealed

that

covariates modifying

the

association

between

perforation

post-tympanoplasty

and

age

group

were

surgeon,

surgical

approach

(transcanal

vs

postauricular)

and

etiology

of

perforation.

Results may

be

found

in

Table

6

. Multivariate

analysis

revealed

that

after

adjusting

for

confounders

there

is

a

significant difference between

the perfora-

tion

rate

post-tympanoplasty

in

preschool

children

(age

2–4)

(

p

= 0.04)

and

children

age

5–7

years

old

(

p

= 0.03)

compared

to

Table

2

Patient and surgical characteristics per status of

the

tympanic membrane at

the end

of

the

follow-up

period.

Characteristic

No

perforation

n

= 206,

n

(%)

Perforation

n

= 78,

n

(%)

OR,

(

p

-value)

Age

group

(0.16)

2–4

34

(69.4)

15

(30.6)

1.66

(0.19)

5–7

89

(68.5)

41

(31.5)

1.74,

(0.07)

8–13

83

(79.0)

22

(21.0)

1.0

Gender

Male

111

(73.5)

40

(26.5)

0.89,

(0.67)

Female

95

(71.4)

38

(28.6)

Adenoidectomy

Yes

98

(73.7)

35

(26.3)

0.89,

(0.68)

No

107

(71.3)

43

(28.7)

Craniofacial

anomaly

Yes

54

(79.4)

14

(20.6)

0.62,

(0.15)

No

151

(70.2)

64

(29.8)

Contralateral

perforation

Yes

53

(70.7)

22

(29.3)

1.14,

(0.66)

No

153

(73.2)

56

(26.8)

Middle

ear

inflammation

Yes

16

(88.9)

2

(11.1)

0.31,

(0.13)

No

188

(71.2)

76

(28.8)

Etiology

(0.04)

Tubes

167

(70.2)

71

(29.8)

1.0

Chronic

ear

disease

17

(89.5)

2

(10.5)

0.28,

(0.09)

Trauma

9

(90.0)

1

(10.0)

0.26,

(0.21)

Surgeon

(0.005)

1

88

(84.6)

16

(15.4)

1.0,

2

70

(67.3)

34

(32.7)

2.67,

(0.004)

3

40

(64.5)

22

(35.5)

3.03,

(0.004)

4

8

(57.1)

6

(42.9)

4.13,

(0.02)

Approach

Transcanal

98

(64.1)

55

(35.9)

2.64,

(

<

0.001)

Post-auricular

108

(82.4)

23

(17.6)

Technique

Overlay

24

(96.0)

1

(4.0)

0.10,

(0.02)

Underlay

182

(70.3)

77

(29.7)

Material

(0.01)

Temporalis

fascia

118

(79.2)

31

(20.8)

1.0

Perichondrium

25

(69.4)

11

(30.6)

1.67,

(0.21)

Acellular

dermis

51

(60.0)

34

(40.0)

2.54,

(0.002)

Cartilage

11

(84.6)

2

(15.4)

0.69,

(0.64)

Size

>

50%

32

(64.0)

18

(36.0)

1.60,

(0.16)

<

50%

159

(74.0)

56

(26.0)

Location

(0.39)

Anterior

86

(71.7)

34

(28.3)

1.0

Posterior

52

(70.3)

22

(29.7)

1.07,

(0.84)

Central

30

(85.7)

5

(14.3)

0.42,

(0.10)

Fig. 1.

Prevalence of

intact

tympanic membrane at

the

end of

the

follow-up period

per

age.

M. Duval

et al.

/

International

Journal

of

Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology

79

(2015)

336–341

121