“HEARING IMPROVEMENT IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING UNDERLAY TECHNIQUE OF MYRINGOPLASTY”

Main Article Content

Dr. Haseeb Ahmed
Dr, Arif Ahmad
Dr. Anum Gul
Dr. Mahnoor Nadeem

Keywords

Tympanic membrane perforation; Myringoplasty; Underlay technique; Hearing improvement; Tympanoplasty; Otologic surgery; Pure tone audiometry.

Abstract

Introduction: The quite common otologic disease that causes conductive hearing loss and repeated infections is the perforation of the Tympanic membrane. Type I tympanoplasty, also known as myringoplasty, aims to repair the eardrum and improve hearing. The underlay method is a popular surgical approach due to its technical simplicity, reduced operative time, and positive hearing results, among other benefits.


Objective: To establish the height and rate of hearing restoration in patients with dry tympanum membrane perforation undergoing underlay myringoplasty.


Materials and Methods: The case series presented was performed in the Department of E.N.T., Allied Hospital, Faisalabad, between January, 2020 and December, 2024. It included 90 patients aged 15–40 years, dry tympanic membrane perforations that lasted over 12 weeks, and air-bone gap ≤40 dB. Patients who had active ear disease, mastoiditis, sensorineural deafness, systemic comorbidities, or eustachian tube dysfunction were excluded. Myringoplasty was carried out underlay and temporalis fascia grafts, and hearing was evaluated by pure tone audiometry, which was done before and 8 weeks after the surgery.


Results: The average age was 29.6 ± 5.7 years, 66.7 percent men and 33.3 percent women. In 56.7%, the etiology of perforation was infective, and in 43.3%, the etiology was traumatic. Small holes were the major (60%) ones. The postoperative outcome showed that 51 patients (56.7%) had significant hearing improvement of 10 dB or more gap between air and bones, and 39 patients (43.39%) did not have any improvement.


Conclusion: It was demonstrated that underlay myringoplasty was effective in producing significant hearing benefits in more than fifty percent of patients, demonstrating its presence as a safe surgical procedure in everyday otologic surgery.

Abstract 38 | Pdf Downloads 5

References

1. Albazee E, Salamah M, Althaidy M, Hagr A. Underlay myringoplasty versus overlay myringoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2024 Apr;76(2):1848-56.
2. Arif M, Mudassar M, Noor A, Khan A, Khan Q, Khan S. Efficacy of underlay versus overlay technique for myringoplasty in terms of hearing improvement. J Med Sci. 2022 Jun 29;30(2):114-6.
3. Sugimoto H, Tamori A, Hatano M, Hasegawa H, Yoshizaki T. Myringoplasty: A comparison of inlay and underlay techniques. J Otol. 2024 Apr 1;19(2):72-6.
4. Zakzouk H, Daif A, Elgogary K, Ezzat A. Underlay versus over-underlay myringoplasty regarding hearing and surgical outcomes. Ann Otol Neurotol. 2025;6:e016.
5. Saraf A, Manhas M, Jamwal PS, Begh RA, Kalsotra P. Comparative study of overlay and underlay techniques of myringoplasty – our experience. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2022 Aug;74(Suppl 1):426-32.
6. Ahamad R. A comparison of myringoplasty techniques by underlay and overlay. Int J Acad Med Pharm. 2023;5(4):851-5.
7. Hameed MK, Naveed S, Akbar A, Manzoor A, Akram AU, Malik FJ. Over-underlay technique of myringoplasty. Prof Med J. 2021 Mar 10;28(3):282-6.
8. Kamthan A, Shah A, Nerurkar R. Evaluation of the functionality of graft and success rate of graft uptake in wet and dry ear for myringoplasty by underlay technique. Int J Acad Med Pharm. 2024;6(6):786-90.
9. Jayasudha K, Rajasekar MK. Prospective study of overlay and underlay technique in myringoplasty. Ann Rom Soc Cell Biol. 2021;25(1):2297-313.
10. Filipche IS, Chakar M, Javari S. Myringoplasty – a review of 438 cases. Prilozi. 2024 Mar 1;45(1).
11. Habib-Ur-Rehman NU, Said M, Shahabi IK, Ullah H, Saleem M. Factors influencing the success rate of myringoplasty.
12. Varshney R. Over-underlay graft technique versus conventional underlay myringoplasty in patients with chronic suppurative otitis media.
13. Ricciardiello F, Pisani D, Petruzzi G, Viola P, Palladino R, Sequino G, et al. Comparison between overlay and underlay primary myringoplasty: retrospective analysis on anatomical and functional results in 497 adult patients. Acta Biomed. 2022 Aug 31;93(4):e2022072.
14. Le TT, Vo DM, Duong TM, Nguyen N. Endoscopic transcanal myringoplasty with anterior tab flap underlay technique: an analysis of 35 cases. Ann Med Surg. 2022 Aug 1;80.

15. Karunaratne D, Violaris N. Myringoplasty outcomes from a 5-year single surgeon’s experience and important surgical technical aspects. J Audiol Otol. 2021 Aug 25;25(4):224.
16. Shishegar M, Faramarzi M, Biniaz D, Rabiei N, Babaei A. Comparison of the underlay and over-underlay tympanoplasty: a randomized, double-blind controlled trial. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2023 Apr;8(2):518-24.
17. Alhiraki I. Surgical outcomes of revision myringoplasty. J Otolaryngol Rhinol. 2021;7:103.
18. Kumar V. Audiometric assessment of hearing status in patients after myringoplasty.
19. Hammouda M, Heiba MH, Ibrahim HO, Sourial MS. Endoscopic transcanal underlay myringoplasty using a platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) membrane. Egypt J Otolaryngol. 2024 May 2;40(1):50.