ArticleBMC surgery2026
Platelet-rich fibrin versus Gelfoam as external auditory canal packing in endoscopic tympanoplasty: a comparative clinical study.
Article in BMC surgery, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGelfoam is widely used for external auditory canal (EAC) packing in tympanoplasty but may cause foreign-body reactions and unpredictable dissolution. Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) offers an autologous alternative; however, its use as an EAC packing material remains limited. This study compared PRF and Gelfoam as EAC packing materials, focusing on clinical behavior and postoperative handling.
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed 228 endoscopic tympanoplasty patients grouped by EAC packing material—Gelfoam (n = 119) or PRF (n = 109). Demographic and surgical variables and the dissolution and handling characteristics of the packing materials were recorded. PRF was prepared intraoperatively from autologous blood and applied as 2–4 mm fragments. Dissolution behavior was assessed by routine postoperative otoscopic examination based on clinical visual estimation at postoperative weeks 1 and 2.
resultsDissolution patterns differed markedly between groups. Gelfoam remained clinically persistent at two weeks, whereas PRF showed partial clinical dissolution at week 1 (22.47%) and near-complete dissolution by week 2 (83.67%) (p < 0.001). All Gelfoam cases required mechanical removal, while none of the PRF cases required aspiration (p < 0.001). PRF residues were non-adherent and associated with smoother epithelial healing on clinical inspection.
conclusionPRF is a safe and effective alternative to Gelfoam as an EAC packing material in tympanoplasty. Compared with Gelfoam, PRF demonstrated more predictable clinical dissolution, minimal adhesion to the canal, and eliminated the need for postoperative suctioning. Given the retrospective design, further prospective studies are warranted.
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.