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.