ArticleThe Laryngoscope2026
Comparative Study of Tympanic Membrane Regeneration Therapy for Chronic Otitis Media.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the effectiveness of tympanic membrane regeneration therapy (TMRT) for chronic otitis media (COM).
methodsOf 154 patients (166 ears) with COM and tympanic membrane perforation (TMP), 53 (54 ears) underwent conventional tympanoplasty (CTP), and 101 (112 ears) underwent TMRT. TMRT was performed using an endoscope to create a fresh wound around the TMP edge and remove most of the remaining TM. After high-pressure saline irrigation of the tympanic cavity and removal of the lesion, a basic fibroblast growth factor-infiltrated gelatin sponge was placed and covered with fibrin glue. After 4 ± 1 weeks, the eschar was removed and closure assessed. CTP was performed by tympanomeatal flap elevation with/without a postauricular skin incision using a microscope/endoscope. After cleaning the tympanic cavity, autologous tissue was collected and transplanted for TM reconstruction. TMP closure rate, hearing improvement, operative time, patient satisfaction, adverse events, and reperforation rate were compared between groups.
resultsThe main outcomes of TMRT versus CTP were: TMP closure rate 95.5% (107/112 ears) versus 88.9% (48/54 ears), average air conduction hearing (at 0.5/1.0/2.0 kHz) improvement 11.8 versus 7.7 dB, operative time 35.0 versus 112.0 min, patient satisfaction rate 94.1% (95/101 patients) versus 73.6% (39/53 patients), adverse event rate 9.8% (11/112 ears) versus 18.5% (11/54 ears), and reperforation rate 1.9% (2/105 ears) versus 8.3% (4/48 ears).
conclusionTMRT has many advantages over CTP as a surgical treatment for COM. In particular, significant differences were observed in operative time, hearing improvement, and patient satisfaction between the procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3:
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.