T-tubes Through Cartilage Tympanoplasty: Is It Worth the Perforation Risk?

OBJECTIVE To review a single surgeon's experience with T-tube placement through cartilage tympanoplasty versus native tympanic membrane for long-term ventilation of the chronic ear and residual perforation rates following tube removal. STUDY DESIGN Retrospective chart review. SETTING Two tertiary referral centers. PATIENTS One hundred sixteen patients (4-71 yr of age) who underwent either total island cartilage tympanoplasty or posterior palisade cartilage tympanoplasty with T-tube placement primarily or secondarily from 1998 to 2016. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Long-term outcome of each T-tube was recorded with respect to retention and patency, and tympanic membrane status following either tube removal or extrusion. Audiometric data, age, sex, diagnosis, and procedure(s) performed were considered. RESULTS There were 116 patients (122 total ears and 139 total T-tubes) included: 57 ears underwent total island cartilage tympanoplasty with tube placed through cartilage and 65 ears underwent posterior island graft with tube placed through native tympanic membrane. Sixty-eight T-tubes were placed in the total island cartilage group with three (4.4%) residual perforations following removal. Seventy-one T-tubes were placed in the posterior palisade graft group with six residual perforations (8.5%) following removal or extrusion. The mean retention rate for the T-tubes was 3.93 years for the total island tympanoplasty group and 3.58 years for the posterior palisade tympanoplasty group. The mean follow-up for total island tympanoplasty and posterior palisade tympanoplasty was 5.36 and 5.66 years, respectively. CONCLUSION Our data suggest that T-tube placement through cartilage tympanoplasty is worthwhile providing long-term ventilation to the middle ear and portends no higher risk for residual perforation than T-tube placement through native tympanic membrane.