Observation Versus Gel-Foam Grafting of Acute Traumatic Tympanic Membrane Perforation: Which Is Better?

Background: This study aimed to compare between 2 methods of recent traumatic tympanic membrane (TM) perforation management (observation and gel-foam patching).

Methods: The patients with recent traumatic TM perforation (within 3 months) were divided into 2 groups (one group managed by observation and other group managed by gel-foam patching) with 3-month follow-up period. The comparison factors are healing rate, healing time, and air–bone gap (ABG) closure in healed cases.

Results: There are 62 ears with perforation of TM, 30 ears treated by observation method, and 32 ears treated by gel-foam grafting, healing rate is higher in second group (84.3%) and healing time is shorter in second group; these differences are not significant statistically with P-values equal to (.168), (.494) consecutively; in addition, ABG closure was same in both groups.

Conclusion: Healing rate when use gel-foam patching for acute TM perforation is higher than observation without any manipulation but really this difference is not significance statistically. The time that needed for healing is less in patients who undergone gelfoam patching in comparison with observational methods; thus will decrease number of patients who may complain from complications of TM perforation, as well-known earlier healing lead to earlier return to normal personal activities, but also this difference is not statistical significant. There is no difference in ABG closure in both types of management.

Cite this article as: Ahmed MD, Abd Ali MS, Ahmed AS. Observation versus gel-foam grafting of acute traumatic tympanic membrane perforation: Which is better? Balkan ORL-HNS 2024;1(3):75-81.