Trial reportJournal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale
Comparison of Perichondrium Reinforcement and the Use of a Cartilage-Perichondrium Composite Graft Alone in the Repair of Subtotal Perforation: A Semi-Random Study.
Trial report in Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveGraft outcomes and complications were compared in patients who received a cartilage-perichondrium composite graft via perichondrium reinforcement (CPPR) and those treated using only a cartilage-perichondrium composite graft underlay (CPGU) technique, including raising a tympanomeatal flap, in the repair of a subtotal perforation.Materials and MethodsPatients with subtotal perforations were semi-randomly allocated to the CPPR and CPGU groups. The graft success rate, hearing outcomes, operation times, postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) values, and complications were compared for up to 6 months postoperatively.ResultsThe sample consisted of 67 ears from 67 patients. The mean operation time was 33.1 ± 2.8 min in the CPPR group and 56.2 ± 1.8 min in the CPGU group. At 6 months postoperatively, the VAS scores were 1.4 ± 0.9 and 3.7 ± 1.2, and the graft success rates were 97.0% and 88.2% (P = .371), respectively. There were no significant differences in the mean gain in the air-bone gap (16.2 ± 5.3 vs. 14.7 ± 6.2) between the two groups, but hearing improvement was greater in the CPPR group. Ear fullness was reported by 21.2% patients in the CPPR group and 91.2% of patients in the CPGU group. Temporary hypogeusia developed in 3.0% of patients in the CPPR group and 38.2% of those in the CPGU group. Myringitis was seen in 9.1% patients in the CPPR group and 2.9% in the CPGU group.ConclusionIn patients undergoing subtotal perforation repair, the 6-month graft outcome in patients treated with the perichondrium reinforcement technique without raising a tympanomeatal flap and external ear canal packing was similar to that of patients who underwent a flap-raising technique. The advantages of the perichondrium reinforcement technique are that it is simple, time-saving, and minimally invasive, with less ear fullness and better hearing recovery.
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.