ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2022
Revision canal-wall down surgery: comparison of surgical outcomes with three different techniques.
Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to analyze the role of the endoscope in revision canal-wall down (CWD) tympanomastoid surgery and compare its use to the more traditional microscopic approach. Moreover, we aim to investigate functional outcomes of revision surgeries in a cohort of two tertiary reference centers.
methodsA total of 103 patients undergoing revision surgery after previous CWD tympanomastoidectomy were included in the present study and divided in three groups according to the surgical technique used: endoscope exclusive (n = 22), combined (n = 35) and microscope exclusive (n = 46). Data regarding surgical indications, pre-operative clinical and audiological assessments, intraoperative findings and surgical considerations were extracted. During follow-up, data regarding anatomic and audiologic outcomes were collected and persistence or recurrence of the disease assessed.
resultsThe most frequent sites of cholesteatoma recurrence or persistence was the anterior epitympanum. There was a statistically significant ABG improvement of - 6.02 dB HL (95% CI - 8.87 to - 3.16, p < 0.001) between pre-operative and postoperative ABG, without significant effect of surgical technique. During follow-up, no significant differences regarding disease or otorrhea control were observed. Duration of surgery and hospitalization was shorter in the endoscopic cohort without statistical significance. Intra- and postoperative complications were lower in the endoscopic group.
conclusionRevision CWD surgery can take advantage of the endoscope as a minimally invasive exclusive or adjunct tool to traditional microscopic procedures. Outcome measures of endoscopic revision CWD surgery showed anatomic and functional results comparable to those of the microscopic group. The complication rate, the duration of surgery and hospitalization were favorable in the endoscopic group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.