ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2024
Endoscopic malleostapedotomy versus incudostapedotomy for stapes fixation with or without lateral chain fixation: A comparative outcomes study.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 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.
- Malleostapedotomy in Patients With Stapes Fixation: A Systematic Review.The Laryngoscope · 2026Pooled it
- Endoscopic malleostapedotomy versus incudostapedotomy for stapes fixation with or without lateral chain fixation: A comparative outcomes study.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aims to evaluate and compare the surgical outcomes of endoscopic malleostapedotomy (EMS) and endoscopic incudostapedotomy (EIS). Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 36 consecutive ears in 33 patients who underwent stapes surgery using either EMS (EMS group) or EIS (EIS group). Operational practicability across surgical steps, postoperative hearing, operation time, switch of approach, and complications were compared between the two groups. Results: The EMS and EIS groups comprised seven (19.4%) and 29 ears (80.6%), respectively. The EMS group exhibited a greater proportion of moderate practicability in anchoring site exposure (42.9%, three of seven) and in securing the prosthesis (100%, seven of seven) in comparison to the EIS group, which had 0% (0 out of 29) and 41.4% (12 out of 29), respectively. Postoperative hearing improvements were equivalent between the groups, with EMS achieving a mean air-bone gap improvement of 28.8 dB and EIS of 23.2 dB. The ABG closure rates within 10 dB and 20 dB for the EMS group were 28.6% and 100%, respectively, and not significantly different from the EIS group ( Conclusion: The findings indicate that while EMS requires a longer operation time because of decreased practicability in specific surgical steps, it provides comparable outcomes to EIS, underscoring the potential of endoscopic techniques to establish malleostapedotomy as a surgical option as it is with traditional incudostapedotomy. Level of Evidence: 4.
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.