Objective. To investigate the effect of otomicroscopy combined with otoendoscopy double-lens technology-assisted tympanic membrane repair on elderly patients chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM). Methods. 120 elderly CSOM patients from January 2017 to July 2019 were selected and divided into the otomicroscopy group (n = 40), the otoendoscopy group (n = 40), and the double-lens group (n = 40) by the random number method. All patients were treated with tympanic membrane repair. The otomicroscopy group was assisted by otomicroscopy, the otoendoscopy group was assisted by otoendoscopy. and the double-lens group was assisted by otomicroscopy combined with otoendoscopy. The three groups of operations status, clinical efficacy, the incidence of adverse reactions, hearing improvement rate, and satisfaction rate with incision after 6 months were compared. Results. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization time, and VAS score of the otoendoscopy group and the double-lens group were all lower than those of the otoendoscopy group, and the operation time of the double-lens group was lower than that of the otoendoscopy group (
P
<
0.05
). The clinical efficacy of the double-lens group was better than that of the otomicroscopy group and otoendoscopy group (
P
<
0.05
). The adverse reaction rate of the otoendoscopy group and the double-lens group was lower than that of the otomicroscopy group, and the average postoperative air-bone conductance of the double-lens group was lower than that of the otomicroscopy group and the otoendoscopy group, and the hearing improvement rate was higher than that of the otomicroscopy and otoendoscopy groups (
P
<
0.05
). The satisfaction rate with postoperative incision in the otoendoscopy group and double-lens group was higher than that in the otomicroscopy group (
P
<
0.05
). Conclusion. The double-lens technology-assisted tympanic membrane repair has an obvious effect on elderly patients with CSOM. Compared with the single-use otomicroscopy, the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization time, patient’s dry ear condition, degree of surgical pain, clinical efficacy, adverse reaction rate, hearing improvement rate, and patient’s incision satisfaction of the double-lens technology are better. Compared with the single-use otoendoscopy, the operation time, clinical efficacy, and hearing improvement rate of the double-lens technology are better.
