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.