A comparison of endoscopic and microscopic inlay butterfly cartilage tympanoplasties and their educational utility

Endoscopic Versus Microscopic Type I Tympanoplasty: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the clinical outcomes after endoscopic and microscopic type I tympanoplasty.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trials, two-arm prospective studies, and retrospective studies were included.

SETTING

Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases were searched until March 1, 2022 using the combinations of search terms: "endoscopic," "microscopic," and "tympanoplasty."

METHODS

Two independent reviewers utilized the abovementioned search strategy to identify eligible studies. If any uncertainty existed regarding eligibility, a third reviewer was consulted. Primary outcome measures were graft success rate, air-bone gap (ABG) improvement, and operative time. Secondary outcomes were the rate of need for canalplasty, the proportion of self-rated excellent cosmetic results, and pain visual analog scale (VAS).

RESULTS

Forty-three studies enrolled a total of 3712 patients who were undergoing type I tympanoplasty and were finally included. The pooled result showed endoscopic approach was significantly associated with shorter operative time (difference in means: -20.021, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -31.431 to -8.611), less need for canalplasty (odds ratio [OR]: 0.065, 95% CI: 0.026-0.164), more self-rated excellent cosmetic results (OR: 87.323, 95% CI: 26.750-285.063), and lower pain VAS (difference in means: -2.513, 95% CI: -4.737 to -0.228). No significant differences in graft success rate or ABG were observed between the two procedures.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic type I tympanoplasty provides a similar graft success rate, improvement in ABG, and reperforation rate to microscopic tympanoplasty with a shorter operative time, better self-rated cosmetic results, and less pain. Unless contraindicated, the endoscopic approach should be the procedure of choice in type I tympanoplasty.

Training in Endoscopic Ear Surgery: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

Despite the increasing popularity of Endoscopic Ear Surgery (EES), there is a lack of evidence to guide trainees as they introduce EES into practice. This review aims to evaluate training in EES including the optimal introductory procedures, methods of training, the learning curve, and the determination of competency in EES. In addition, this review seeks to identify any areas falling within these themes requiring further clarification.

DATA SOURCES

A database search of Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Library was conducted in June 2022. Original articles, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses reporting on training in EES, introduction into practice, learning curves, and competency assessment were included.

REVIEW METHODS

A scoping review was carried out in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines and reported according to PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews. A qualitative assessment of results grouped thematically was performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria, with 24 rating as "fair" or "good" on quality assessment. Surgical simulation was the most frequently described method of training as utilized in 11 studies. The most suggested introductory procedure was tympanoplasty which was advocated for in five studies. Heterogeneity existed in the outcomes and methodologies used to measure EES learning curves, with an overreliance on surgical times. No robust definition of competency in EES procedures exists at present.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical simulation appears to be a beneficial training methodology for EES. However, there is a marked lack of objective data to describe the optimal introductory procedures or assessment of competency in EES. Laryngoscope, 133:3269-3278, 2023.

Endoscopic or Microscopic Tympanoplasty Advantages and Disadvantages: A Theory Domain Systematic Review

Introduction  Tympanoplasty is a reparative surgery that has multiple indications. The aid of a microscope or an endoscope is necessary to carry out the procedure. The classic method utilizes the microscope; however, in the recent decades, the endoscope has been popular. Although many articles try to compare these two techniques, there is still no robust evidence that confirms the superiority of either technique. In the present work, we seek to perform a systematic review contribute with this. Objectives  The present systematic review attempted to compare endoscopic and microscopic surgery techniques and to discover whether there would be superiority in the results of any of them, based on data currently available in the literature. Data Synthesis  The objectives of the present review were organized according to the PICO planning and strategy adapted for systematic reviews. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were established aiming to select only select primary data. The main medical databases were searched using an optimized search string with appropriate descriptors. The searched databases were MEDLINE, LILACS, SciELO, and EMBASE. A total of 99 studies were selected and 38 were fully assessed after the inclusion criteria were applied. All included articles were reviewed by all authors and their results were discussed and summarized. Conclusion  The endoscopic technique was shown to be a safer technique comparable in effectiveness to the use of microscopy. In addition, it provides possible advantages such as shortening the surgical time and better postoperative pain outcomes.

Comparison between endoscopic and microscopic butterfly cartilage graft inlay tympanoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of endoscopic and microscopic approaches for butterfly cartilage graft inlay tympanoplasty regarding anatomical and hearing outcomes through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A search of PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and Virtual Health Library was performed from inception to July 3rd, 2021, using keywords, such as tympanoplasty, cartilage graft, and inlay technique. Data from articles that met inclusion criteria were extracted by two authors independently. The PRISMA statement was followed. RoB-2 and ROBINS-I tools were used to assess risk of bias. The primary outcome was tympanic membrane closure rate. The secondary outcome was improvement of the air-bone gap.

RESULTS

Five studies were included, one randomized clinical trial and four retrospective cohorts, in which a total of 318 patients were included. Graft take rate was 91.3% in the endoscopic group and 93.6% in the microscopic group (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.93-1.03; I² 0%; P = 0.68). Four studies provided data about the secondary outcome, all showing significant reductions in air-bone gap, ranging from 5.7 to 11.0 in the endoscope group and from 5.8 to 11.6 in the microscope group, with a mean difference between groups of 0.85 (95% CI - 0.79 to 2.48).

CONCLUSION

Although the overall evidence of the included studies was low, endoscopic and microscopic butterfly cartilage graft inlay tympanoplasties have similar results on anatomical and hearing outcomes, making the selection between such approaches an individual choice for the surgeon.

Comparison of Inlay Cartilage Butterfly and Underlay Temporal Fascia Tympanoplasty

Objective

To systematically review the results of inlay cartilage butterfly tympanoplasty and standard underlay temporal fascia tympanoplasty for anatomic and functional end points.

Data Sources

PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and Virtual Health Library (VHL/Lilacs) databases were searched from inception through April 2, 2021. No restrictions on language, publication year, or publication status were applied.

Review Methods

The meta-analysis included data from articles that met inclusion criteria and were extracted by 2 authors independently. The PRISMA statement was followed. Risk of Bias 2.0 and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess risk of bias. The primary outcome was tympanic membrane closure rate. The secondary outcome was improvement of the air-bone gap.

Results

Ten studies were included, 9 cohort studies and 1 randomized clinical trial, with 577 patients. The graft take rate was 82.8% in the butterfly cartilage inlay tympanoplasty group and 85.2% in the temporal fascia underlay tympanoplasty group (relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.93-1.11; I² = 42%, P = .08). The air-bone gap reduction ranged from 6.1 to 11.28 in the butterfly cartilage inlay group and from 5.2 to 12.66 in the temporal fascia underlay group, with a mean difference between groups of −2.08 (95% CI, −3.23 to −0.94; I² = 58%, P = .04), favoring temporal fascia underlay.

Conclusion

The 2 tympanoplasty techniques analyzed here produced similar results in terms of successful reconstruction of the tympanic membrane and reduction in the air-bone gap. Neither age nor follow-up length of time influenced outcomes.