Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37966540›Full record

SynthesisEuropean 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 Surgery2024

Comparison of endoscope-assisted and microscope-assisted type I tympanoplasty; a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Kirolos Botros Elnahal, Mohamed Amir Hassan, Ahmed Mahmoud Maarouf

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Endoscopic revision surgery for ossicular chain reconstruction: intraoperative findings and functional outcomes.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 · 2025
    Article
  4. Conventional one-handed compared to two-handed endoscopic ear surgery using an endoscope holder: a single center study.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 · 2025
    Article
  5. [Application of the follower arm endoscope holder in type i tympanoplasty].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kirolos Botros ElnahalElmabarra Health Insurance Hospital, 16th Elthaora Street, Nile Corniche, Assiut, Egypt. kyropetros@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6308-8949
Mohamed Amir HassanFaculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4034-9624
Ahmed Mahmoud MaaroufFaculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7939-9760
Ain Shams University · EGAssiut University · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo analyze and compare the available data about the outcomes of endoscopic and microscopic type I tympanoplasty. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cochrane library Ovid, Scopus, Google scholar, and ClinicalTrials.

methodsWe conducted a meta-analysis in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We included comparative studies describing type I tympanoplasty, and comparing surgical outcomes of the endoscope with the microscope in terms of efficacy and safety.

resultsOur systematic search yielded 22 studies meeting the inclusion criteria and eligible for analysis. The pooled graft uptake rates and audiological results of endoscopic and microscopic tympanoplasty demonstrated non-significant differences. In contrast, endoscopic type I tympanoplasty outperforms microscopic tympanoplasty regarding a highly significant decrease not only in pooled mean operative time but also in the pooled complications rate.

conclusionsBased on our meta-analysis, the surgical outcomes of endoscope-assisted and microscope-assisted type I tympanoplasty in terms of postoperative hearing outcomes and the graft uptake rate were comparable. On the contrary, operative time and complications rate proved to be significantly reduced with endoscopy compared to microscopy. Hence, the endoscope is as efficient as the microscope in type I tympanoplasty but less invasive, fewer in complications and shorter in operative time.

Indexed as

EndoscopyTympanoplastyHumansMicroscopyMicrosurgeryOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsTreatment OutcomeTympanic Membrane PerforationEndoscopeMeta-analysisMicroscopeMyringoplastyTympanic membrane perforationTympanoplasty

Identifiers

PMID37966540
PMCPMC11023963
OpenAlexW4388701229

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.