SynthesisOtolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery2025
Comparing the Audiological Success of Bone Cement to Standard Ossiculoplasty Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the audiological success and longevity of bone cement to standard ossiculoplasty techniques. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Medline, and the Web of Science were systematically searched for studies from the date of inception to November 8, 2024. REVIEW
methodsTwo independent reviewers screened for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were full-text, English language publications. Human studies of any methodology except case series with fewer than five patients were included. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guidelines were followed. Data were pooled using a random-effects model using relative risk with 95% CIs. Prespecified primary outcomes compared the success of bone cement reconstruction at short and longer-term follow-up.
resultsA total of 27 studies met the eligibility criteria. Bone cement resulted in better audiological outcomes (postoperative mean air-bone gap < 20 dB HL) compared to incus interposition, risk ratio (RR): 1.26 (95% CI: 1.10-1.43). There was no difference in success between bone cement and partial ossicular replacement prosthesis (PORP), RR: 1.15 (95% CI: 0.94-1.41). The findings of this review suggest that bone cement remains successful at a longer-term follow-up.
conclusionBone cement outperforms incus interposition and is comparable to PORP for audiological outcomes. Audiological improvement is sustained into longer-term follow-up.
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.