Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39001920›Full record

Trial reportEuropean 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 endoscopic and microscopic stapedotomy in the same patients: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

İsa Kaya, Fetih Furkan Şahin, Hasan Tanrıverdi, Süleyman Eroğlu, Tayfun Kirazli

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Endoscopic versus microscopic stapedotomy: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis incorporating all comparative evidence.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 · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Improved Bone Conduction and Hearing Outcomes After Stapes Surgery for Otosclerosis.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2026
    Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

İsa KayaDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Ege University Faculty of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7096-4858
Fetih Furkan ŞahinDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Kızıltepe State Hospital, Mardin, Turkey. fetihfurkansahin@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6593-9452
Hasan TanrıverdiDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Şırnak State Hospital, Şırnak, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4390-1138
Süleyman EroğluDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Ege University Faculty of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6693-5509
Tayfun KirazliDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Ege University Faculty of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5284-8842

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed to conduct a comparative analysis of audiological and postoperative clinical outcomes between the endoscopic and microscopic stapedotomy approaches.

methodsThis study employed a randomized, controlled design. Twenty-seven patients with bilateral otosclerosis underwent stapedotomy in both ears, with randomized allocation of the surgical technique (endoscopic vs. microscopic) for the first operated ear. Air-bone gap (ABG) and ABG gain were measured at least 12 months postoperatively. Postoperative outcomes including pain (Visual Analog Scale-VAS), dizziness, early-term (day 1) and late-term (6 months) dysgeusia were evaluated. The Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) assessed health-related quality of life at one month postoperatively, and operative time was measured.

resultsThis study compared endoscopic (n = 27 ears) and microscopic (n = 27 ears) stapedotomy for otosclerosis. Both groups achieved similar hearing improvement with no significant differences in pre-operative and post-operative bone/air conduction thresholds, ABG, and ABG gain (all p > 0.05). The endoscopic stapedotomy group demonstrated reduced postoperative pain (lower VAS scores, p < 0.001), lower early dysgeusia (3.7% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.005), shorter operative time (47.3 vs. 75.4 min, p < 0.001) and improved patient-reported outcomes (higher GBI score, p = 0.014) when compared to microscopic stapedotomy group. No significant differences were observed in postoperative dizziness or late-term dysgeusia between groups.

conclusionThis study found similar hearing improvement with both endoscopic and microscopic stapedotomy for otosclerosis. However, the endoscopic approach showed advantages in reduced postoperative pain, early dysgeusia, and operative time, with improved patient-reported quality of life. These findings suggest endoscopic stapedotomy as a valuable alternative to the conventional microscopic approach.

Indexed as

EndoscopyOtosclerosisQuality of LifeStapes SurgeryAdultBone ConductionFemaleHumansMaleMicrosurgeryMiddle AgedOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative PainProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeEndoscopic stapes surgeryMicroscopic stapes surgeryOtosclerosisStapedotomyStapes surgery

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.