Comparable effects concerning graft uptake rate and hearing improvement results
With regard to the graft uptake, no significant difference was found between ET and MT. Similar results were also reported in previous meta-analytic studies of Tseng C-C et al34, Lee S-Y et al35 and Pap I et al36. In this meta-analysis, we selected included studies that used similar operative techniques such as grafting material (temporalis fascia or perichondrium) and the graft placement method by underlay technique in order to obtain more accurate results about graft uptake rate.
Audiological results resembled graft uptake outcomes. Not unexpectedly, ABGs improvement demonstrated no significant difference between ET and MT, despite discrepancies in hearing evaluations. Remarkable TM closure rates between ET and MT may explain comparable audiological outcomes. However, potential publication bias with highly significant heterogeneity may have negatively impacted the integrity of this analysis. Tseng C-C et al34, Lee S-Y et al35 and Pap I et al36 reported similar analytic results.