Comparison of Endoscopic Versus Microscopic Tympanoplasty.
Graft uptake
Hearing improvement
Tymapanoplasty with endoscope
Journal
Iranian journal of otorhinolaryngology
ISSN: 2251-7251
Titre abrégé: Iran J Otorhinolaryngol
Pays: Iran
ID NLM: 101577699
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2022
May 2022
Historique:
received:
24
09
2021
accepted:
09
04
2022
entrez:
3
6
2022
pubmed:
4
6
2022
medline:
4
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Tympanoplasty is a common surgery for chronic otitis media and has conventionally been performed with a microscope for decades. The trend of endoscopic minimally invasive surgeries has been increasing worldwide for the last few decades. Few studies have discussed the outcomes of tympanoplasty with microscope and tympanoplasty with endoscope . This study aims to compare results of tympanoplasty done with microscope vs endoscope in terms of graft take rate and improvement in conductive hearing loss. We did a retrospective review of 120 patients (54 male and 66 female) who underwent Type I tympanoplasty at Liaquat National Postgraduate Medical Center from January 2019 to January 2020. We included 60 patients who underwent tympanoplasty with microscope and 60 patients who underwent tympanoplasty with endoscope. Postoperative graft uptake and hearing improvement were studied. Overall mean preoperative hearing loss was 30.24 (±9.61) dB as compared to mean postoperative hearing loss, which was reduced to 19.36 ( ±8.54) dB, and the difference was significant (P-value <0.001. No statistically significant difference was found for air-bone gap closure between the two groups (P-value 0.78). Out of 120 patients, overall successful graft uptake was seen in 109 (90.8%). In tympanoplasty with microscope, graft take was 90.0%, compared to 91.6% in endoscope group. There was no significant difference in graft take in the two groups. The tympanoplasty with endoscope is comparable to tympanoplasty with microscope in terms of graft uptake and hearing improvement.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35655543
doi: 10.22038/IJORL.2022.61234.3104
pmc: PMC9119655
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
139-143Références
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017 Jul;274(7):2727-2732
pubmed: 28439691
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016 Nov 1;142(11):1088-1093
pubmed: 27540858
Laryngoscope. 2017 Aug;127(8):1890-1896
pubmed: 27861950
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017 Sep;274(9):3343-3349
pubmed: 28669049
J Laryngol Otol. 2018 Jun;132(6):509-513
pubmed: 29909782
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2014 Jul;78(7):1084-9
pubmed: 24816224
J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018 Jul 4;47(1):44
pubmed: 29973286
Otol Neurotol. 2008 Dec;29(8):1085-90
pubmed: 18836388
J Laryngol Otol. 2006 Jun;120(6):429-32
pubmed: 16772050
Am J Otol. 2000 May;21(3):315-21
pubmed: 10821542
J Int Adv Otol. 2016 Apr;12(1):28-31
pubmed: 27340979
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1999 Jan;108(1):39-46
pubmed: 9930539
J Laryngol Otol. 1992 Jun;106(6):493-5
pubmed: 1624881
Otol Neurotol. 2012 Jun;33(4):586-90
pubmed: 22429943
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2013 Mar;270(3):853-60
pubmed: 22639200