» Articles » PMID: 28539252

The Outcomes of Overlay Myringoplasty: Endoscopic Versus Microscopic Approach

Overview
Date 2017 May 26
PMID 28539252
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the outcomes of overlay myringoplasty by comparing the endoscopic versus the microscopic approach.

Materials And Methods: This is a retrospective comparative study of 181 patients who underwent myringoplasty with overlay techniques between January 2010 and 2016 at Songklanagarind Hospital, Thailand. Group 1 underwent an endoscopic-assisted (n=90), and group 2 underwent the microscopic-assisted (n=91) overlay myringoplasty. The outcomes were graft take rates, the audiometric results, the need of canalplasty, complications and operative time. All patients were followed up for at least 6months.

Results: The graft take rates were 96.7% in the endoscopic group and 91.2% in the microscopic group, p=0.22. The operative time was 98.9±11.0min for the endoscopic group, and 176.6±14.9min for the microscope group, p<0.001. There was no need for intraoperative canalplasty in the endoscopic group; however, 4% of cases in the microscopic group required canalplasty, p=0.12. The postoperative air-bone gap (ABG) closure was not different between both groups, p=0.09. Postoperative complications including post auricular numbness (p<0.001), aural fullness (p=0.002), and ear protrusion (p=0.005) were found in the microscopic group more than the endoscopic group.

Conclusions: Endoscopic overlay myringoplasty provided satisfactory surgical as well as audiometric outcomes when compared with the microscopic approach. The graft take rate and postoperative hearing were similar in both groups. The endoscopic approach seemed to be superior than the microscopic approach in term of operative time, complication, and no need for canalplasty.

Citing Articles

Outcomes of Microscopic vs. Endoscopic Tympanoplasty at a Tertiary Healthcare Institution in Western Maharashtra.

Colvin S, Havle A, Shedge S, Vihapure G, M P A, Karna S Cureus. 2024; 16(10):e70833.

PMID: 39493106 PMC: 11531923. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.70833.


Underlay Myringoplasty Versus Overlay Myringoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Albazee E, Salamah M, Althaidy M, Hagr A Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2024; 76(2):1848-1856.

PMID: 38566745 PMC: 10982238. DOI: 10.1007/s12070-023-04425-6.


[Clinical research advances of endoscopic tympanoplasty].

Li S, Ke J, Ma F Lin Chuang Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2020; 34(9):853-856.

PMID: 33040515 PMC: 10127721. DOI: 10.13201/j.issn.2096-7993.2020.09.020.


Pain After Ear Surgery: A Prospective Evaluation of Endoscopic and Microscopic Approaches.

Baazil A, van Spronsen E, Ebbens F, Dikkers F, de Wolf M Laryngoscope. 2020; 131(5):1127-1131.

PMID: 32945553 PMC: 8247283. DOI: 10.1002/lary.29038.


Can Endoscopic Tympanoplasty Be a Good Alternative to Microscopic Tympanoplasty? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Lee S, Lee D, Seo Y, Kim Y Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2019; 12(2):145-155.

PMID: 30674106 PMC: 6453785. DOI: 10.21053/ceo.2018.01277.