Endoscopic type I tympanoplasty is as effective as microscopic type I tympanoplasty but less invasive-A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic type I tympanoplasty was originally introduced in the 1990s, and the extensive spread of this practice can be easily observed. The conventional technique performed involves the repair of a tympanic membrane perforation, and is defined as microscopic type I tympanoplasty. OBJECTIVE OF REVIEW: The aim of this study was the comparison of postoperative outcomes of both the endoscopic and the microscopic type I tympanoplasty. TYPE OF REVIEW: We conducted a meta-analysis in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. SEARCH STRATEGY: A systematic literature search was performed in the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Clarivate Analytics-Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization Library, and Scopus by inserting, 'myringoplasty OR (tympanoplasty AND perforation)' into the search query. We applied only a 'human' filter. We excluded non-English studies. Additional records were identified by checking the references of relevant studies. EVALUATION METHOD: Comparative studies were included in our analysis. We calculated the pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Additionally, we assessed the risk of bias and estimated the quality of evidence for each outcome. RESULTS: Our systematic search yielded 16 studies (involving 1179 interventions), eligible for analysis. The pooled graft uptake rate (OR: 1.21, CI: 0.82-1.77; I2  = 0.0%), the postoperative hearing results (WMD = -1.13; 95% CI: -2.72-0.45; I2  = 78.1%) and the operation time (WMD = -21.11; 95% CI: -42.60-0.38; I2  = 99.3%), were all comparable amongst the two techniques. In contrast, the endoscopic type I tympanoplasty outperforms when regarding the pooled canaloplasty rate (OR = 7.96; 95% CI: 4.30-14.76; I2  = 0.0%, P = 1.000) and features an increase in desirable cosmetic results (OR = 19.29; 95% CI: 11.37-32.73; I2  = 0.0%, P = 0.839), when compared with the microscopic approach. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our meta-analysis, the surgical outcomes of endoscopic type I tympanoplasty in terms of graft uptake rate, postoperative hearing results and operation time were comparable to the microscopic type I tympanoplasty. In regards to cosmetics, an increase in desirable results was achieved in the endoscopic group, particularly the incidence of canaloplasty which proved to be significantly lower.