A Comparative Study of Endoscopic Myringoplasty vs Conventional Myringoplasty

Kumar, Manish; Kanaujia, SK; Singh, Ashutosh Kumar

doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10003-1209

Cited by 23 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our primary search yielded a total of 8700 records. In the screening of the records by title, abstract and full‐text, we found 18 articles which met the eligibility criteria . We found two publications with identical cohorts of patients; therefore, we excluded the recently published one .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sixteen studies including 1179 interventions were deemed eligible for inclusion . Accrued results, in which endoscopic type I tympanoplasty was as effective as microscopic type I tympanoplasty in a homogenous dataset, indicated a 90.5% graft uptake rate in the endoscopic and 88.3% success rate in the microscopic group (OR: 1.21, CI: 0.82‐1.77; I 2 = 0.0%, P = 0.910) (Figure ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Endoscopic type I tympanoplasty is as effective as microscopic type I tympanoplasty but less invasive—A meta‐analysis

Pap

Tóth

Gede

et al. 2019

Clinical Otolaryngology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Endoscopic type I tympanoplasty was originally introduced in the 1990s, and the extensive spread of this practice can be easily observed. The conventional technique performed involves the repair of a tympanic membrane perforation, and is defined as microscopic type I tympanoplasty. Objective of Review The aim of this study was the comparison of postoperative outcomes of both the endoscopic and the microscopic type I tympanoplasty. Type of Review We conducted a meta‐analysis in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Search Strategy A systematic literature search was performed in the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Clarivate Analytics‐Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization Library, and Scopus by inserting, ‘myringoplasty OR (tympanoplasty AND perforation)’ into the search query. We applied only a ‘human’ filter. We excluded non‐English studies. Additional records were identified by checking the references of relevant studies. Evaluation Method Comparative studies were included in our analysis. We calculated the pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Additionally, we assessed the risk of bias and estimated the quality of evidence for each outcome. Results Our systematic search yielded 16 studies (involving 1179 interventions), eligible for analysis. The pooled graft uptake rate (OR: 1.21, CI: 0.82‐1.77; I2 = 0.0%), the postoperative hearing results (WMD = −1.13; 95% CI: −2.72‐0.45; I2 = 78.1%) and the operation time (WMD = −21.11; 95% CI: −42.60‐0.38; I2 = 99.3%), were all comparable amongst the two techniques. In contrast, the endoscopic type I tympanoplasty outperforms when regarding the pooled canaloplasty rate (OR = 7.96; 95% CI: 4.30‐14.76; I2 = 0.0%, P = 1.000) and features an increase in desirable cosmetic results (OR = 19.29; 95% CI: 11.37‐32.73; I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.839), when compared with the microscopic approach. Conclusions Based on our meta‐analysis, the surgical outcomes of endoscopic type I tympanoplasty in terms of graft uptake rate, postoperative hearing results and operation time were comparable to the microscopic type I tympanoplasty. In regards to cosmetics, an increase in desirable results was achieved in the endoscopic group, particularly the incidence of canaloplasty which proved to be significantly lower.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endoscopic type I tympanoplasty is as effective as microscopic type I tympanoplasty but less invasive—A meta‐analysis

Pap

Tóth

Gede

et al. 2019

Clinical Otolaryngology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[2] In the study conducted by Kumar M, et al, in the endoscopy group all the patients rated their cosmetic outcome as excellent, whereas in the microscopic group 10 patients (33.3%) rated their cosmetic result as excellent, 16(53.3%) and 4(13.3%) patients rated their cosmesis as satisfactory and poor respectively. [4] In our study better cosmetic result in the microscopic groups as compared to these studies may be due to the fact that we used subcuticular continuous sutures for skin closure.…”

Section: Post Operative Cosmesismentioning

confidence: 43%

“…Average postoperative gain in the microscopic and endoscopic groups were 13.96 and 15.03 dB respectively. [4] In the study by Ambani K. et al, postoperatively hearing loss in the endoscopic group was within 30 dB was found in 38 of 40 patients(95%). [12] Complications There were no significant complications in either group.…”

Section: Graft Uptakementioning

confidence: 99%

“…[3] In the study conducted by Kumar M. et al, graft uptake was 86% in the conventional microscopic group and 83% in the endoscopic group. [4] Shoeb M. et al found the drum healing or graft uptake was 93.33% in both the groups (microscopic and endoscopic groups). [5] In the study conducted by Patel J. et al, they observed that in endoscopic group 16 (72.72 %) patients while in microscopic group 20 (90%) patients showed complete graft uptake.…”

Section: Graft Uptakementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Comparative Study to Compare the Outcomes of Myringoplasty (Endoscopic Versus Microscopic)

Saggu¹,

Kuchhal²,

Rawat³

2018

AIMDR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of myringoplasty using the microscope and the endoscope. Methods: This was a prospective study carried out in the department of otorhinolaryngology of Dr Susheela Tiwari Government Hospital, Haldwani. Results & Conclusion: There was no statistical difference in both the groups in term of graft uptake and post operative hearing outcome, however the endoscopic approach took considerably less time, had less post operative pain and a better cosmetic result.

show abstract

Endoscopic Versus Microscopic Type‐1 Tympanoplasty: A Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Trials

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Totally endoscopic ear surgery is becoming increasingly utilized in otologic practice. Although the well‐established microscope‐assisted tympanoplasty remains the most common technique to repair a tympanic membrane defect, the merits of endoscopic approaches have been well‐documented. This systematic review and meta‐analysis compares the outcomes of endoscopic to microscopic tympanoplasty incorporating only randomized trials. Study Design Systematic review and meta‐analysis. Methods A comprehensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE was conducted. All randomized studies comparing endoscopic to microscopic tympanoplasty were collected according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analysis guidelines. Quality assessment was carried out utilizing the Risk of Bias 2. Results The initial search identified 1711 studies, of which 9 met the inclusion criteria comprising of 540 patients (microscopic tympanoplasty 51.5%; endoscopic tympanoplasty 49.5%). The mean age was 32.5 years with a similar number of males (50.1%) and females (49.9%). Both endoscopic and microscopic groups had comparable outcomes with regards to graft success rate (RD 0.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.04 to. 0.05; p = 0.87) and hearing improvement (MD 0.57 dB; 95% CI, −1.23 to 2.36; p = 0.54). A significantly shorter operative time was noted in the endoscopic group (MD, −24.73 min; 95% CI, −38.56 to −10.89; p = 0.0005). Conclusion Our results, assimilating level 1 evidence, demonstrates that endoscopic and microscopic‐assisted type‐1 tympanoplasty have similar outcomes in both graft success and hearing improvement, with endoscopic approaches yielding a shorter operative time. Level of Evidence 1 Laryngoscope, 133:1550–1557, 2023

show abstract

A Comparative Study of Endoscopic Myringoplasty vs Conventional Myringoplasty

Cited by 23 publications

References 4 publications

Endoscopic type I tympanoplasty is as effective as microscopic type I tympanoplasty but less invasive—A meta‐analysis

Endoscopic type I tympanoplasty is as effective as microscopic type I tympanoplasty but less invasive—A meta‐analysis

A Comparative Study to Compare the Outcomes of Myringoplasty (Endoscopic Versus Microscopic)

Endoscopic Versus Microscopic Type‐1 Tympanoplasty: A Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About