الفهرس | Only 14 pages are availabe for public view |
Abstract Myringoplasty is a surgical procedure for repair of the tympanic membrane. The middle ear cavity can be safeguarded from exposure to the external environment by repairing the tympanic membrane, hence preventing further exposure to pathogens. Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) is a second-generation platelet concentrate. It contains fibrin membrane which has platelets and growth factors prepared from patient‟s own blood free of any anticoagulant. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of local application of platelet rich fibrin to perforated dogs tympanic membranes in myringoplasty. This study was carried out on 40 right ears of dogs with variable size of dry chronic tympanic membrane. Further randomized divided into two groups group 1 represent study group (PRF was used) after trimming of the edges of tympanic membrane perforation while group 2 represent control group (PRF was not used) only trimming of the edges of tympanic membrane perforation. Evaluation was made in respect of healing and the presence ofoedema, neovascularization, fibrosis, and inflammation. The results of our present study can be summarized as follows: There were statistically significant difference between Study group and Control group regarding Healing at 4 weeks. Percentage of healing of study group was 47.5% versus 25% among control group. There were statistically significant difference between Study group and Control group regarding Healing at 8 weeks. Percentage of healing of study group was 90% versus 75% among control group. Summary 79 There were no statistically significant difference between Study group and Control group regarding odema according to histopathology after 8 weeks. Fibrosis was determined at a higher rate in the study group than in the control group. There were statistically significant difference between Study group and Control group regarding neovasculization according to histopathology after 8 weeks. Percentage of neovasculization of study group was 90% versus 75% among control group. |