ArticleInternational archives of otorhinolaryngology2026
A Comparative Analysis of Microscopic and Endoscopic Stapedotomy: A Prospective Study.
Article in International archives of otorhinolaryngology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Stapedotomy is a procedure performed for the treatment of otosclerosis in which a small hole is created in the footplate stapes and a prosthesis is inserted from the incus to the vestibule. Objective: The present study aims to compare the benefits of endoscopic stapedotomy with those of microscopic stapedotomy. Methods: We included 20 patients of the Outpatient Department of Ear, Nose, and Throat (ENT) of a private medical college, who were diagnosed with otosclerosis and were scheduled to undergo stapedotomy. After they provided informed consent, the patients were randomly divided into two groups: group A underwent microscopic stapedotomy, and group B, endoscopic stapedotomy. Both the groups were compared in terms of intraoperative time, surgical approach, visualization of anatomical landmarks, extent of drilling of the posterosuperior part of external auditory canal, manipulation of the facial nerve, and postoperative pain, dizziness, and hearing loss. Results: A postural approach was required in 4 patients in group A. Visualization of the anatomical landmarks was better in group B. The extent of drilling of the posterosuperior part of the external auditory canal was minimal in group B, whose patients only experienced mild dizziness and low levels of pain postoperatively. Conclusion: Both techniques demonstrated high efficacy in improving hearing outcomes and reducing postoperative complications. Endoscopic stapedotomy offers enhanced visualization of anatomical landmarks and requires minimal drilling and minimal manipulation of the facial nerve. Moreover, the endoscopic procedure results in lower levels of postoperative pain and dizziness, as well as better cosmetic outcomes.
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.