Endoscopic Versus Microscopic Tympanoplasty: A Single-Blinded Randomized Comparative Trial.

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Aparna Govindan, Mia Saade, Jennifer Ren, Vivian F Kaul, Zachary G Schwam, Enrique R Perez, Maura K Cosetti, George Wanna
{"title":"Endoscopic Versus Microscopic Tympanoplasty: A Single-Blinded Randomized Comparative Trial.","authors":"Aparna Govindan, Mia Saade, Jennifer Ren, Vivian F Kaul, Zachary G Schwam, Enrique R Perez, Maura K Cosetti, George Wanna","doi":"10.1097/MAO.0000000000004590","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To provide prospective evidence comparing differences in audiometric and patient-reported outcomes following endoscopic and microscopic tympanoplasty techniques.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Single-blinded prospective randomized comparative trial.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Tertiary care center between 2022 and 2023.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>English- and Spanish-speaking adults undergoing transcanal tympanoplasty for dry tympanic membrane perforation (without cholesteatoma or chronic ear disease).</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Endoscopic or microscopic tympanoplasty.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcome was air-bone gap change at 3 months. Secondary measures included speech recognition thresholds (SRT), word recognition scores (WRS), and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including visual analog scale (VAS) of pain, Return to Work Self-Efficacy (RTWSE-19), and Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-eight adults (mean age, 39.9 yr; range, 21-74 yr) were enrolled. Fifteen received microscopy, and 16 received endoscopy. Seven were excluded from the analysis: three required a post-auricular incision, and four were lost to follow-up without postoperative audiograms. Only PROMs collected within 3 weeks postoperatively were analyzed due to high participant dropout rates beyond 3 weeks. There were no differences in any audiometric or patient-reported outcomes between treatment groups (p > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings suggest that transcanal endoscopic and microscopic approaches to tympanoplasty do not differ in postoperative audiometric outcomes or PROMs.</p>","PeriodicalId":19732,"journal":{"name":"Otology & Neurotology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Otology & Neurotology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000004590","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To provide prospective evidence comparing differences in audiometric and patient-reported outcomes following endoscopic and microscopic tympanoplasty techniques.

Study design: Single-blinded prospective randomized comparative trial.

Setting: Tertiary care center between 2022 and 2023.

Patients: English- and Spanish-speaking adults undergoing transcanal tympanoplasty for dry tympanic membrane perforation (without cholesteatoma or chronic ear disease).

Intervention: Endoscopic or microscopic tympanoplasty.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was air-bone gap change at 3 months. Secondary measures included speech recognition thresholds (SRT), word recognition scores (WRS), and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including visual analog scale (VAS) of pain, Return to Work Self-Efficacy (RTWSE-19), and Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI).

Results: Thirty-eight adults (mean age, 39.9 yr; range, 21-74 yr) were enrolled. Fifteen received microscopy, and 16 received endoscopy. Seven were excluded from the analysis: three required a post-auricular incision, and four were lost to follow-up without postoperative audiograms. Only PROMs collected within 3 weeks postoperatively were analyzed due to high participant dropout rates beyond 3 weeks. There were no differences in any audiometric or patient-reported outcomes between treatment groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that transcanal endoscopic and microscopic approaches to tympanoplasty do not differ in postoperative audiometric outcomes or PROMs.

内窥镜与显微镜鼓室成形术:一项单盲随机比较试验。
目的:提供前瞻性证据,比较内窥镜和显微镜下鼓室成形术后听力学和患者报告结果的差异。研究设计:单盲前瞻性随机比较试验。设置:三级护理中心,2022年至2023年。患者:说英语和西班牙语的成年人,因干鼓膜穿孔(无胆脂瘤或慢性耳部疾病)而接受经鼻鼓室成形术。干预:内窥镜或显微镜下的鼓室成形术。主要观察指标:主要观察指标为3个月时气骨间隙变化。次要测量包括语音识别阈值(SRT)、单词识别评分(WRS)和患者报告的结果测量(PROMs),包括疼痛的视觉模拟量表(VAS)、重返工作自我效能(RTWSE-19)和格拉斯哥福利量表(GBI)。结果:成人38例,平均年龄39.9岁;年龄范围21-74岁)。15例接受显微镜检查,16例接受内窥镜检查。7例被排除在分析之外:3例需要在耳廓后切开,4例在没有术后听音图的情况下失去随访。仅分析术后3周内收集的prom,因为超过3周的参与者辍学率很高。治疗组之间的听力测量或患者报告的结果均无差异(p < 0.05)。结论:我们的研究结果表明,经鼻内镜和显微镜下的鼓室成形术在术后听力测量结果或PROMs方面没有差异。
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
Otology & Neurotology
Otology & Neurotology 医学-耳鼻喉科学
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
14.30%
发文量
509
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​​​Otology & Neurotology publishes original articles relating to both clinical and basic science aspects of otology, neurotology, and cranial base surgery. As the foremost journal in its field, it has become the favored place for publishing the best of new science relating to the human ear and its diseases. The broadly international character of its contributing authors, editorial board, and readership provides the Journal its decidedly global perspective.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信