ArticleCureus2024
Outcomes of Microscopic vs. Endoscopic Tympanoplasty at a Tertiary Healthcare Institution in Western Maharashtra.
Article in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) involves tympanic membrane perforation and is traditionally treated with microscopic tympanoplasty. Recent advancements in endoscopic techniques offer enhanced visibility and outcomes. This retrospective study compares endoscopic and microscopic tympanoplasty outcomes in CSOM patients between 2023 and 2024. Aim This study aims to evaluate outcomes of endoscopic vs. microscopic tympanoplasty in patients suffering from CSOM who are presenting at our tertiary care center. Methodology A retrospective study of 100 patients of CSOM undergoing tympanoplasty. Sixty patients underwent microscopic tympanoplasty and 40 endoscopic tympanoplasty. Postoperative successful uptake of graft and resultant hearing were compared between the two groups. Results Ninety-seven out of 100 patients had a successful graft uptake at three months. Fifty-eight patients in the microscopic tympanoplasty group (96.67%) and 39 in the endoscopic group (97.5%) had healed the tympanic membrane at three months of follow-up (p = 0.864). At postoperative three months, no statistically significant difference was found in the improvements in air conduction levels of the two groups (p = 0.995). No significant difference in the air-bone gap between the two groups (p = 0.095). The average air-bone gap at three months postoperative was 7.95 ± 4.20 decibel (dB) in the microscopic tympanoplasty group and 7.80 ± 4.10 dB in the endoscopic tympanoplasty group (p = 0.680). The incidence of postoperative wound area pain, numbness, and ear discharge was significantly higher in patients undergoing microscopic tympanoplasty (p < 0.05). Conclusion The two methods did not significantly differ in terms of the outcome of the hearing test or the rate of graft uptake. However, a better result was noted in endoscopic tympanoplasty compared to the microscopic tympanoplasty group. Postoperative complications encountered were less in the endoscopic tympanoplasty group.
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.