Search

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., (© 2023 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation.)

Objective: The objective of this research is to compare primary and salvage intratympanic (IT) steroid treatments in terms of hearing outcomes in patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL)., Methods: The patients were randomized into two (primary and salvage) groups. Both groups received systemic steroid treatment for 2 weeks. The primary group also received IT dexamethasone injection three times during the treatment period, whereas the salvage group received IT dexamethasone injection only if no or slight recovery was noted at the 2-week follow-up. If needed, salvage steroid injection was administered three times during the following 2 weeks. Hearing recovery was analyzed according to the modified American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery criteria., Results: The degrees of hearing improvement at the 3-month follow-up were similar in the two groups. Compared with baseline, the pure-tone average values and speech discrimination scores improved by 38.45 ± 21.95 dB HL and 34.32% ± 30.55%, respectively, in the primary group and 36.80 ± 22.33 dB HL and 31.87% ± 27.88%, respectively, in the salvage group ( p  = .762 and .659, respectively). In addition, the complete or partial hearing recovery rates were also similar in the primary and salvage groups (67.7% vs. 73.3%, respectively; p  = .780). In the salvage group, 18 patients required no IT steroid injection because they recovered after systemic steroid treatment., Conclusion: Primary and salvage IT steroid treatments for ISSNHL led to similar outcomes. In summary, salvage IT steroid injection is recommended for patients with ISSNHL patients to prevent unnecessary IT injection., Level of Evidence: 2., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (© 2023 The Authors. Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Triological Society.)