Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T05:21:26.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Hearing loss following myringoplasty – implications for informed consent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2015

J Bewick*
Affiliation:
ENT Department, James Paget University Hospital, Great Yarmouth, UK
P Prinsley
Affiliation:
ENT Department, James Paget University Hospital, Great Yarmouth, UK ENT Department, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Jessica Bewick, ENT Department, James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Lowestoft Rd, Gorleston-on-Sea, Great Yarmouth NR31 6LA, UK E-mail: Jessica.bewick@gmail.com

Abstract

Background:

There are many reports of operations performed to successfully close ear drum perforations. Hearing deterioration after myringoplasty is not a widely published topic. This paper presents an audit of this complication.

Methods:

A six-year retrospective analysis of a series of myringoplasty operations was performed using electronic patient records. Patients with post-operative hearing loss were identified and those with hearing loss greater than 10 dB were further scrutinised.

Results:

Out of 187 patients who underwent myringoplasty procedures, 44 (23.53 per cent) experienced a reduction in hearing thresholds. In seven cases (3.74 per cent), the hearing loss was greater than 10 dB. A case note review revealed no obvious predictive factors, although posterior perforations and the possibility of ossicular chain manipulation were considered.

Conclusion:

Hearing loss following myringoplasty is not rare, and this may alter the consent process for this procedure.

Type
Main Articles
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Common Otology Audit. In: www.ear-audit.net [27 January 2015]Google Scholar
2Prinsley, P. An audit of ‘dead ear’ after ear surgery. J Laryngol Otol 2013;127:1177–83CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Common Otology Audit comparison tool. In: https://www.ear-audit.net/coa/ [27 January 2015]Google Scholar
4Mahendran, S, Bennett, AM, Jones, SE, Young, BA, Prinsley, PR. Audit of specialist registrar training in tympanomastoid surgery for chronic otitis media. J Laryngol Otol 2006;120:193–9Google Scholar
5Kotecha, B, Fowler, S, Topham, J. Myringoplasty: a prospective audit study. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1999;24:126–9Google Scholar
6Thiel, G, Mills, RP, Mills, N. Factors affecting hearing improvement following successful repair of the tympanic membrane. J Laryngol Otol 2013;127:349–53CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Karkanevatos, A, De, S, Srinivasan, VR, Roland, NJ, Lesser, TH. Day-case myringoplasty: five years' experience. J Laryngol Otol 2003;117:763–5Google Scholar
8Pignataro, L, Grillo Della Berta, L, Capaccio, P, Zaghis, A. Myringoplasty in children: anatomical and functional results. J Laryngol Otol 2001;115:369–73Google Scholar
9Browning, GG. Reporting the benefits from middle ear surgery using the Glasgow Benefit Plot. Am J Otol 1993;14:135–40Google Scholar
10Black, JH, Wormald, PJ. Myringoplasty--effects on hearing and contributing factors. S Afr Med J 1995;85:41–3Google Scholar
11Yung, MW. Myringoplasty: hearing gain in relation to perforation site. J Laryngol Otol 1983;97:1117Google Scholar
12Vartiainen, E, Nuutinen, J. Success and pitfalls in myringoplasty: follow-up study of 404 cases. Am J Otol 1993;14:301–5Google Scholar