ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2024
Endoscopic and Microscopic Tympanoplasty for Adhesive Otitis Media: A Comparative Prospective Analysis.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
BACKGROUND This prospective study aimed to compare outcomes and hearing improvement in 51 patients with adhesive otitis media following endoscopic and microscopic tympanoplasty. MATERIAL AND METHODS Between April 2021 and April 2022, 51 patients diagnosed with pars tensa retraction and hearing loss who underwent endoscopic and microscopic cartilage tympanoplasty were included in the study (endoscopic tympanoplasty group: 26 patients, microscopic tympanoplasty group: 25 patients). Pure-tone audiometric data (0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz), air-bone gap (ABG), and postoperative graft intake were compared. RESULTS Hearing gain in the ABG was significant in both groups (p<0.05). When the groups were compared for mean hearing gain in the ABG, the difference was significant (p<0.05). The postoperative ABG in the endoscopic group was significantly smaller than that in the microscopic group. When the postoperative air conduction threshold was evaluated, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups at 4 kHz, whereas a significant difference was observed in the endoscopic tympanoplasty group at 0.5, 1, and 2 kHz. Postoperative graft failure and otorrhea were not observed in any of the patients. CONCLUSIONS Pars tensa retractions and adhesive otitis media show comparable outcomes with both endoscopic and microscopic techniques. In endoscopic tympanoplasty, better visualization allows for better hearing outcomes. The endoscopic method, characterized by a wide field of view and a less invasive approach, enhances access to retraction limits.
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.