Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 24, 2026

09:20
Step-by-Step Stapedotomy through Transcanal Exclusive Endoscopic Approach
Published on: March 5, 2022
Tympanic membrane retraction: An endoscopic evaluation of staging systems
Adrian L James1, Blake C Papsin, Keith Trimble
1Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. adr.james@utoronto.ca
The Laryngoscope
|March 1, 2012
Summary
Current tympanic membrane (TM) retraction staging systems show poor reliability and weak correlation with hearing loss in children with cleft palate. Modifications are needed for better clinical assessment of TM retraction.
Area of Science:
- Otolaryngology
- Pediatric Audiology
- Medical Imaging
Background:
- Tympanic membrane (TM) retraction is common in children with cleft palate.
- Accurate assessment of TM retraction is crucial for monitoring hearing health.
- Existing staging systems for TM retraction have variable reliability.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the inter- and intraobserver variability of different tympanic membrane (TM) retraction staging systems using otoendoscopy in children at risk of retraction from cleft palate.
- To compare the stage of TM retraction with hearing levels.
- To propose optimal characteristics for monitoring TM retraction via endoscopy.
Main Methods:
- A cross-sectional study involving endoscopic images of 245 tympanic membranes (TMs) from children with cleft palate (mean age, 13.0 years).
- Six observers assessed pars tensa and pars flaccida retraction using Sade, Erasmus, and Tos staging systems on two occasions.
- Intra- and interobserver agreements were calculated, and TM retraction extent was correlated with hearing thresholds, excluding TMs with effusion, tubes, or perforation.
Main Results:
- 44% of TMs showed pars tensa and/or flaccida retraction.
- Intraobserver agreement was fair to moderate (kappa = 0.3-0.37), and interobserver agreement was slight to moderate (0.18-0.41).
- No significant correlation was found between hearing threshold and retraction stage, although isolated tensa retraction onto the promontory increased hearing threshold more than incus involvement (P = .02).
Conclusions:
- Endoscopic imaging offers objective TM retraction records, but current staging systems lack satisfactory reliability for these images.
- The correlation between TM retraction stage and hearing threshold is poor, limiting clinical utility.
- Modifications to retraction assessment methods are proposed to enhance validity and clinical relevance.

