ReviewOTO open
Comparison of Inlay Cartilage Butterfly and Underlay Temporal Fascia Tympanoplasty.
Review in OTO open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Comparison of the clinical outcomes between endoscopic butterfly inlay cartilage tympanoplasty and underlay cartilage tympanoplasty in small-to-medium-sized tympanic membrane perforations].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2025Article
- Evaluation on the possibility of sound conduction independent of tympanic air cavity for severe tympanic adhesion patients by finite element analysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically review the results of inlay cartilage butterfly tympanoplasty and standard underlay temporal fascia tympanoplasty for anatomic and functional end points. Data Sources: PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and Virtual Health Library (VHL/Lilacs) databases were searched from inception through April 2, 2021. No restrictions on language, publication year, or publication status were applied. Review Methods: The meta-analysis included data from articles that met inclusion criteria and were extracted by 2 authors independently. The PRISMA statement was followed. Risk of Bias 2.0 and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess risk of bias. The primary outcome was tympanic membrane closure rate. The secondary outcome was improvement of the air-bone gap. Results: Ten studies were included, 9 cohort studies and 1 randomized clinical trial, with 577 patients. The graft take rate was 82.8% in the butterfly cartilage inlay tympanoplasty group and 85.2% in the temporal fascia underlay tympanoplasty group (relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.93-1.11; Conclusion: The 2 tympanoplasty techniques analyzed here produced similar results in terms of successful reconstruction of the tympanic membrane and reduction in the air-bone gap. Neither age nor follow-up length of time influenced outcomes.
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.