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.