CONCLUSION
Based on our meta-analysis, the surgical outcomes of endoscope-assisted
and microscope-assisted
type I tympanoplasty in terms of postoperative hearing results and the
graft uptake rate were comparable. Operative time, additional maneuvers
rate, and complications rate, on the other hand, 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.
Our results may be beneficial to decision-making and outcome prediction
in patients receiving ET.
The current meta-analysis justifies the introduction of the endoscope to
type I tympanoplasty and implies that the endoscope can be a better
alternative to the conventional microscope technique. However,
the potential effect of the location of TM perforation and the learning
curve in surgical practice, besides other influencing factors, such as
healthcare costs, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative hospital stay
and the inner ear thermal damage, should be further investigated.