Endoscopic and Microscopic Tympanoplasty for Adhesive Otitis Media: A Comparative Prospective Analysis.

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 Medicine
Fatih Özdoğan, Halil Erdem Özel, Erdem Köroğlu, Selahattin Genç
{"title":"Endoscopic and Microscopic Tympanoplasty for Adhesive Otitis Media: A Comparative Prospective Analysis.","authors":"Fatih Özdoğan, Halil Erdem Özel, Erdem Köroğlu, Selahattin Genç","doi":"10.12659/MSM.945152","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BACKGROUND This prospective study aimed to compare outcomes and hearing improvement in 51 patients with adhesive otitis media following endoscopic and microscopic tympanoplasty. MATERIAL AND METHODS Between April 2021 and April 2022, 51 patients diagnosed with pars tensa retraction and hearing loss who underwent endoscopic and microscopic cartilage tympanoplasty were included in the study (endoscopic tympanoplasty group: 26 patients, microscopic tympanoplasty group: 25 patients). Pure-tone audiometric data (0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz), air-bone gap (ABG), and postoperative graft intake were compared. RESULTS Hearing gain in the ABG was significant in both groups (p<0.05). When the groups were compared for mean hearing gain in the ABG, the difference was significant (p<0.05). The postoperative ABG in the endoscopic group was significantly smaller than that in the microscopic group. When the postoperative air conduction threshold was evaluated, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups at 4 kHz, whereas a significant difference was observed in the endoscopic tympanoplasty group at 0.5, 1, and 2 kHz. Postoperative graft failure and otorrhea were not observed in any of the patients. CONCLUSIONS Pars tensa retractions and adhesive otitis media show comparable outcomes with both endoscopic and microscopic techniques. In endoscopic tympanoplasty, better visualization allows for better hearing outcomes. The endoscopic method, characterized by a wide field of view and a less invasive approach, enhances access to retraction limits.</p>","PeriodicalId":48888,"journal":{"name":"Medical Science Monitor","volume":"30 ","pages":"e945152"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11299465/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Science Monitor","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.945152","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND This prospective study aimed to compare outcomes and hearing improvement in 51 patients with adhesive otitis media following endoscopic and microscopic tympanoplasty. MATERIAL AND METHODS Between April 2021 and April 2022, 51 patients diagnosed with pars tensa retraction and hearing loss who underwent endoscopic and microscopic cartilage tympanoplasty were included in the study (endoscopic tympanoplasty group: 26 patients, microscopic tympanoplasty group: 25 patients). Pure-tone audiometric data (0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz), air-bone gap (ABG), and postoperative graft intake were compared. RESULTS Hearing gain in the ABG was significant in both groups (p<0.05). When the groups were compared for mean hearing gain in the ABG, the difference was significant (p<0.05). The postoperative ABG in the endoscopic group was significantly smaller than that in the microscopic group. When the postoperative air conduction threshold was evaluated, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups at 4 kHz, whereas a significant difference was observed in the endoscopic tympanoplasty group at 0.5, 1, and 2 kHz. Postoperative graft failure and otorrhea were not observed in any of the patients. CONCLUSIONS Pars tensa retractions and adhesive otitis media show comparable outcomes with both endoscopic and microscopic techniques. In endoscopic tympanoplasty, better visualization allows for better hearing outcomes. The endoscopic method, characterized by a wide field of view and a less invasive approach, enhances access to retraction limits.

内窥镜和显微镜鼓室成形术治疗粘连性中耳炎:前瞻性对比分析
背景 这项前瞻性研究旨在比较 51 名粘连性中耳炎患者在接受内窥镜和显微镜鼓室成形术后的疗效和听力改善情况。材料与方法 2021 年 4 月至 2022 年 4 月期间,51 名被诊断为鼓室旁后退和听力损失的患者接受了内窥镜和显微镜下软骨鼓室成形术(内窥镜鼓室成形术组:26 名患者,显微镜鼓室成形术组:25 名患者)。比较了纯音测听数据(0.5、1、2 和 4 kHz)、气骨间隙(ABG)和术后移植物摄入量。结果 两组患者的 ABG 听力均有显著提高(p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Science Monitor
Medical Science Monitor MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
3.20%
发文量
514
审稿时长
3.0 months
期刊介绍: Medical Science Monitor (MSM) established in 1995 is an international, peer-reviewed scientific journal which publishes original articles in Clinical Medicine and related disciplines such as Epidemiology and Population Studies, Product Investigations, Development of Laboratory Techniques :: Diagnostics and Medical Technology which enable presentation of research or review works in overlapping areas of medicine and technology such us (but not limited to): medical diagnostics, medical imaging systems, computer simulation of health and disease processes, new medical devices, etc. Reviews and Special Reports - papers may be accepted on the basis that they provide a systematic, critical and up-to-date overview of literature pertaining to research or clinical topics. Meta-analyses are considered as reviews. A special attention will be paid to a teaching value of a review paper. Medical Science Monitor is internationally indexed in Thomson-Reuters Web of Science, Journals Citation Report (JCR), Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI), Index Medicus MEDLINE, PubMed, PMC, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, Chemical Abstracts CAS and Index Copernicus.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信