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 Surgery2024
Exclusive endoscopic management of incus long process major defects: conventional incus interposition versus malleostapediopexy.
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, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing the Audiological Success of Bone Cement to Standard Ossiculoplasty Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Glass ionomer cement in incudostapedial rebridging ossiculoplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis.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 · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of the current study is to compare the surgical and audiometric results of conventional incus interposition (IP) versus malleostapediopexy (MS) in incus long process large defects.
methodsA total of 71 patients (incus IP group n = 37, MS group n = 34) were enrolled in this study. All patients enrolled in the current study underwent ossiculoplasty via an exclusive endoscopic transcanal approach. Pre- and postoperative audiometric measurements and air-bone gap (ABG) values were compared, and if the postoperative ABG value was less than 20 dB, ossiculoplasty was considered successful. Graft success rates and complications were also compared.
resultsThe average auditory gain was 14.7 ± 4.2 dB in the incus IP group and 18.3 ± 5.1 dB in the MS group. The auditory gain was significantly greater in the MS group relative to the incus IP group (p = 0.012). Ossiculoplasty success (postoperative ABG value < 20 dB) rate was 70.3% in the incus IP group patients and 88.2% in the MS group patients (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in terms of graft success rate between groups (p > 0.05) and the overall graft uptake rate was 91.5% (65/71).
conclusionMalleostapediopexy-bridging of malleus and stapes using bone cement-is an effective, reasonable, and more efficient technique in terms of auditory outcomes relative to the conventional incus interposition in endoscopic transcanal management of incus long process major defects.
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.