Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T08:34:04.954Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ring versus ‘Mercedes-Benz’ cartilage-perichondrium graft tympanoplasty in management of pars tensa cholesteatoma

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 September 2011

O A Albirmawy*
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology Department, Tanta University Hospital, Egypt
*
Address for correspondence: Dr O A Albirmawy, Reyad St 88, Tanta, 31211, Gharbeya, Egypt E-mail: albirmawy@hotmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To compare anatomical and audiological outcomes of ring versus ‘Mercedes-Benz’ cartilage-perichondrium graft tympanoplasty in patients with pars tensa cholesteatoma.

Study design:

Prospective clinical study.

Setting:

Otolaryngology department, Tanta University Hospital, Egypt.

Patients and methods: Over three years, 60 ears in 60 patients underwent surgery for either sinus or tensa retraction cholesteatoma, reconstructed using either a ring-shaped (30 ears) or Mercedes-Benz symbol shaped (30 ears) cartilage-perichondrium graft, with at least two years' follow up. Post-operative drum perforation and retraction, cholesteatoma residue and recurrence, middle-ear effusion, and hearing acuity were monitored.

Results:

Anatomical outcomes were equivalent in both groups, but slightly better in the Mercedes group. Hearing improved significantly in both groups (pre- vs post-operative results), but significantly more so in the ring group. Within-group hearing outcomes were unaffected by cholesteatoma type or tympanoplasty type.

Conclusion:

The Mercedes-Benz technique may be superior to the ring technique in preventing neodrum retraction. However, the ring graft technique had better hearing outcomes, perhaps due to its more physiological design.

Information

Type
Main Articles
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2011
Figure 0

Fig. 1 Diagram showing (a) ring graft, (b) ring graft in type I tympanoplasty, (c) ring graft in type II tympanoplasty and (d) ring graft in type III tympanoplasty.

Figure 1

Fig. 2 Diagram showing (a) ‘Mercedes-Benz’ graft, (b) Mercedes-Benz graft in type I tympanoplasty, (c) Mercedes-Benz graft in type II tympanoplasty, and (d) Mercedes-Benz graft in type III tympanoplasty.

Figure 2

Table I Surgical groups' cholesteatoma and tympanoplasty types

Figure 3

Table II Surgical groups' anatomical outcomes

Figure 4

Fig. 3 Progressive results for (a) mean pure tone average, (b) mean speech reception threshold and (c) mean air–bone gap, in cholesteatoma ears reconstructed with ring or ‘Mercedes-Benz’ graft.

Figure 5

Table III Surgical groups' hearing results

Figure 6

Fig. 4 Progressive results for (a) mean pure tone average, (b) mean speech reception threshold, and (c) mean air–bone gap, in ears operated upon for sinus or tensa retraction cholesteatoma and reconstructed with either ring or ‘Mercedes-Benz’ graft.

Figure 7

Fig. 5 Progressive results for (a) mean pure tone average, (b) mean speech reception threshold, and (c) mean air–bone gap, in cholesteatoma ears undergoing surgery with type I, II, or III tympanoplasty, with reconstruction of the eardrum using ring or Mercedes-Benz graft.