Comparison of endoscope-assisted and microscope-assisted type I tympanoplasty; a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze and compare the available data about the outcomes of endoscopic and microscopic type I tympanoplasty. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cochrane library Ovid, Scopus, Google scholar, and ClinicalTrials. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We included comparative studies describing type I tympanoplasty, and comparing surgical outcomes of the endoscope with the microscope in terms of efficacy and safety. RESULTS: Our systematic search yielded 22 studies meeting the inclusion criteria and eligible for analysis. The pooled graft uptake rates and audiological results of endoscopic and microscopic tympanoplasty demonstrated non-significant differences. In contrast, endoscopic type I tympanoplasty outperforms microscopic tympanoplasty regarding a highly significant decrease not only in pooled mean operative time but also in the pooled complications rate. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our meta-analysis, the surgical outcomes of endoscope-assisted and microscope-assisted type I tympanoplasty in terms of postoperative hearing outcomes and the graft uptake rate were comparable. On the contrary, operative time and complications rate proved to be significantly reduced with endoscopy compared to microscopy. Hence, the endoscope is as efficient as the microscope in type I tympanoplasty but less invasive, fewer in complications and shorter in operative time.

Polyurethane Versus Chitosan-Based Polymers Nasal Packs After Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Double-Blinded Study.

BACKGROUND: Different packing materials are applied to the nose at the end of surgery to maintain drainage and sinus ventilation of the paranasal sinuses and avoid some complications such as bleeding, infection, crustations, adhesions in the middle meatus and lateralization of the middle turbinate. OBJECTIVE: The study aims to compare the clinical outcomes of two absorbable packing materials, the synthetic polyurethane, and the naturally occurring Chitosan-based polymers (CBP) nasal packs, after functional endoscopic sinus surgery. METHODS: Fifty patients with bilateral chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polypi were operated with 100 surgical cavities. At the end of the surgery, one side was randomly packed with synthetic polyurethane and the opposite side with CBP nasal pack. Measure their outcomes at week 1, 2, 4, 8 and 12 as the presence of remnants materials in the middle meatus, crustations, adhesions, bleeding, granulations, infection, and general satisfaction of patients. RESULTS: CBP nasal pack shows a statistically significant advantage only in the first two weeks as regard remnants material, crusting and bleeding. All over the 12 weeks, there was no statistically significant difference between the two types of packs as regard granulations, adhesions and infection. In the first month, eight patients of the CBP group experienced bad smell and two patients had watery rhinorrhea as adverse reaction without a statistically significant difference. Patients were generally satisfied without a statistically significant difference between the two types of packs. CONCLUSION: Synthetic polyurethane and Chitosan-based polymers nasal packs are safe and efficient regarding; the mucosal healing, bleeding control, and the overall satisfaction of patients. The CBP showed a higher statistically significant advantage in the first two weeks only regarding the amount of the retained material, crusting as well as bleeding. Patients packed with CBP experienced fish-like smelly odor and watery rhinorrhea but there is no statistically significant difference.