Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol.  2019 May;12(2):145-155. 10.21053/ceo.2018.01277.

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

• Lee SY
• Lee DY
• Seo Y
• Kim YH

• KMID: 2447422
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.21053/ceo.2018.01277

Abstract

Although efficacies and proportions of tympanoplasty performed via endoscopic ear surgery (EES) have gradually introduced, it remains unclear whether total EES is a good alternative to microscopic ear surgery (MES). Herein, we aimed to compare therapeutic effects of EES and MES in patients receiving tympanoplasty or myringoplasty. A search of MEDLINE, PubMed, and Embase databases was conducted to compare the efficacies of EES and MES. Two investigators independently reviewed all studies and extracted data with a standardized form. We assessed risk of bias and calculated pooled odds ratio (OR) estimates with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Thirteen studies (607 EES patients and 678 MES patients) met inclusion criteria for quantitative meta-analysis. In pooled analysis, those who undergo EES have 0.99 times the OR of graft success compared to those with MES (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.16; P=0.894). In qualitative analysis, comparable hearing improvement was observed between the two groups, despite inconsistent audiometric evaluation. The air-bone gaps (ABGs) improved 2.02 dB less in EES than in MES (mean difference of improvements of ABGs, 2.02; 95% CI, -3.84 to -0.20; P=0.029); however, substantial heterogeneity and publication bias limited the integrity of this analysis. Further, EES significantly decreased canalplasty rate, wound complications, and operation time, compared to MES. Moreover, patients receiving EES reported higher cosmetic satisfaction than patients receiving MES. EES can be a good alternative to MES in terms of comparable graft success rate and hearing outcomes in patients receiving tympanoplasty or myringoplasty. Moreover, EES was less invasive, resulting in higher cosmetic satisfaction, reduced morbidity, and shorter operation time. Our results may affect decision-making and outcome prediction in cases of EES; however, confirmation is needed to clarify potential bias.

Keyword

Endoscopes; Tympanoplasty; Myringoplasty; Review

MeSH Terms

Bias (Epidemiology)
Ear
Endoscopes
Hearing
Humans
Myringoplasty
Odds Ratio
Population Characteristics
Publication Bias
Research Personnel
Therapeutic Uses
Transplants
Tympanoplasty*
Wounds and Injuries
Therapeutic Uses

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses (PRISMA) flow diagram outlining the study design. EES, endoscopic ear surgery; MES, microscopic ear surgery.

• 

  Fig. 2. (A) Forest plot comparing graft success rate between endoscopic ear surgery (experimental) and microscopic ear surgery (control) by using OR. Events represent the number of cases with graft success. (B) Publication bias of graft success rate. OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.

• 

  Fig. 3. (A) Forest plot comparing the improvement of air-bone gaps of endoscopic ear surgery (experimental) and microscopic ear surgery (control) by using mean difference. (B) Publication bias of hearing outcomes. (C) Adjusted publication bias after trim-and-fill method. SD, standard deviation; MD, median; CI, confidence interval.

• 

  Fig. 4. (A) Forest plot comparing the canalplasty rate of endoscopic ear surgery (experimental) and microscopic ear surgery (control) by using OR. Events represent the number of cases with canalplasty. (B) Publication bias of canalplasty rate. OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.

• 

  Fig. 5. (A) Forest plot comparing the operation time of endoscopic ear surgery (experimental) and microscopic ear surgery (control) by using mean difference. (B) Publication bias of operation time. SD, standard deviation; MD, median; CI, confidence interval.

• 

  Fig. 6. (A) Forest plot comparing the cosmetic results of endoscopic ear surgery (EES; experimental) and microscopic ear surgery (MES; control) by using OR. Events represent the number of cases with cosmetic dissatisfaction. (B) Forest plot comparing the postoperative complications of EES and MES by using OR, with regard to wound problem, epithelial cyst, and wet ear. Events represent the number of cases with each complication. OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.

Reference

1. Tan HE, Santa Maria PL, Eikelboom RH, Anandacoomaraswamy KS, Atlas MD. Type I tympanoplasty meta-analysis: a single variable analysis. Otol Neurotol. 2016; Aug. 37(7):838–46.

2. Rizer FM. Overlay versus underlay tympanoplasty. Part II: the study. Laryngoscope. 1997; Dec. 107(12 Pt 2):26–36.

3. Mundra RK, Sinha R, Agrawal R. Tympanoplasty in subtotal perforation with graft supported by a slice of cartilage: a study with near 100 % results. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013; Dec. 65(Suppl 3):631–5.

4. Jumaily M, Franco J, Gallogly JA, Hentzelman JL, Costa DJ, Wild AP, et al. Butterfly cartilage tympanoplasty outcomes: a single-institution experience and literature review. Am J Otolaryngol. 2018; Jul-Aug. 39(4):396–400.

5. Kozin ED, Gulati S, Kaplan AB, Lehmann AE, Remenschneider AK, Landegger LD, et al. Systematic review of outcomes following observational and operative endoscopic middle ear surgery. Laryngoscope. 2015; May. 125(5):1205–14.

6. Migirov L, Shapira Y, Horowitz Z, Wolf M. Exclusive endoscopic ear surgery for acquired cholesteatoma: preliminary results. Otol Neurotol. 2011; Apr. 32(3):433–6.

7. Tarabichi M. Endoscopic middle ear surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1999; Jan. 108(1):39–46.

8. Furukawa T, Watanabe T, Ito T, Kubota T, Kakehata S. Feasibility and advantages of transcanal endoscopic myringoplasty. Otol Neurotol. 2014; Apr. 35(4):e140–5.

9. Jyothi AC, Shrikrishna BH, Kulkarni NH, Kumar A. Endoscopic myringoplasty versus microscopic myringoplasty in tubotympanic CSOM: a comparative study of 120 cases. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017; Sep. 69(3):357–62.

10. Plodpai Y, Paje N. The outcomes of overlay myringoplasty: endoscopic versus microscopic approach. Am J Otolaryngol. 2017; Sep-Oct. 38(5):542–6.

11. James AL. Endoscope or microscope-guided pediatric tympanoplasty? Comparison of grafting technique and outcome. Laryngoscope. 2017; Nov. 127(11):2659–64.

12. Nassif N, Berlucchi M, Redaelli de Zinis LO. Tympanic membrane perforation in children: endoscopic type I tympanoplasty, a newly technique, is it worthwhile. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2015; Nov. 79(11):1860–4.

13. Harugop AS, Mudhol RS, Godhi RA. A comparative study of endoscope assisted myringoplasty and micrsoscope assisted myringoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008; Dec. 60(4):298–302.

14. Lade H, Choudhary SR, Vashishth A. Endoscopic vs microscopic myringoplasty: a different perspective. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2014; Jul. 271(7):1897–902.

15. Raj A, Meher R. Endoscopic transcanal myringoplasty: a study. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001; Jan. 53(1):47–9.

16. Lakpathi G, Sudarshan Reddy L. Comparative study of endoscope assisted myringoplasty and microscopic myringoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016; Jun. 68(2):185–90.

17. Kumar M, Kanaujia SK, Singh A. A comparative study of endoscopic myringoplasty vs conventional myringoplasty. Otorhinolaryngology Clinics. 2015; 7(3):132–37.

18. Dundar R, Kulduk E, Soy FK, Aslan M, Hanci D, Muluk NB, et al. Endoscopic versus microscopic approach to type 1 tympanoplasty in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2014; Jul. 78(7):1084–9.

19. Kaya I, Sezgin B, Sergin D, Ozturk A, Eraslan S, Gode S, et al. Endoscopic versus microscopic type 1 tympanoplasty in the same patients: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017; Sep. 274(9):3343–9.

20. Huang TY, Ho KY, Wang LF, Chien CY, Wang HM. A comparative study of endoscopic and microscopic approach type 1 tympanoplasty for simple chronic otitis media. J Int Adv Otol. 2016; Apr. 12(1):28–31.

21. Tseng CC, Lai MT, Wu CC, Yuan SP, Ding YF. Endoscopic transcanal myringoplasty for anterior perforations of the tympanic membrane. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016; Nov. 142(11):1088–93.

22. Tseng CC, Lai MT, Wu CC, Yuan SP, Ding YF. Comparison of the efficacy of endoscopic tympanoplasty and microscopic tympanoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Laryngoscope. 2017; Aug. 127(8):1890–6.

23. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009; Jul. 6(7):e1000100.

24. Kuo CH, Wu HM. Comparison of endoscopic and microscopic tympanoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017; Jul. 274(7):2727–32.

25. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003; Sep. 327(7414):557–60.

26. Vrabec JT, Deskin RW, Grady JJ. Meta-analysis of pediatric tympanoplasty. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999; May. 125(5):530–4.

27. Kozin ED, Lehmann A, Carter M, Hight E, Cohen M, Nakajima HH, et al. Thermal effects of endoscopy in a human temporal bone model: implications for endoscopic ear surgery. Laryngoscope. 2014; Aug. 124(8):E332–9.

28. Nardone M, Sommerville R, Bowman J, Danesi G. Myringoplasty in simple chronic otitis media: critical analysis of long-term results in a 1,000-adult patient series. Otol Neurotol. 2012; Jan. 33(1):48–53.

29. Kakehata S, Futai K, Sasaki A, Shinkawa H. Endoscopic transtympanic tympanoplasty in the treatment of conductive hearing loss: early results. Otol Neurotol. 2006; Jan. 27(1):14–9.

30. Marchioni D, Grammatica A, Alicandri-Ciufelli M, Genovese E, Presutti L. Endoscopic cochlear implant procedure. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2014; May. 271(5):959–66.

31. Choi N, Noh Y, Park W, Lee JJ, Yook S, Choi JE, et al. Comparison of endoscopic tympanoplasty to microscopic tympanoplasty. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2017; Mar. 10(1):44–9.

32. De Zinis LO, Berlucchi M, Nassif N. Double-handed endoscopic myringoplasty with a holding system in children: preliminary observations. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2017; May. 96:127–30.

33. Nazarzadeh M, Bidel Z, Moghaddam A. Meta-analysis of diabetes mellitus and risk of hip fractures: small-study effect. Osteoporos Int. 2016; Jan. 27(1):229–30.

34. Rucker G, Schwarzer G, Carpenter JR, Binder H, Schumacher M. Treatment-effect estimates adjusted for small-study effects via a limit meta-analysis. Biostatistics. 2011; Jan. 12(1):122–42.