Table 1.
Characteristics of 13 comparative studies between EES and MES enrolled in quantitative and qualitative analysis
| Study/country | Study design | EES vs. MES |
Comparative parameter | Follow-up period | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anesthesia, grafting techniques, surgical type | No. of patients | Age (yr, range) | ||||
| Jyothi et al. (2017) [9]/India | RCT | LA, underlay, EM vs. LA, underlay, R-MM (n=60) | 60 (M:F=39:21) vs. 60 (M:F=26:34) | 28.5 vs. 31.4 | 1. Graft success rate | 12 mo |
| 2. Hearing outcomes | ||||||
| 3. Canalplasty rate | ||||||
| Plodpai and Paje (2017) [10]/Thailand | Retrospective | LA, overlay, EM vs. LA, overlay, R-MM (n=91) | 90 (M:F=33:57) vs. 91 (M:F=23:68) | 45.5 (36–56) vs. 46 (22–58) | 1. Graft success rate | 6 mo |
| 2. Hearing outcomes | ||||||
| 3. Canalplasty rate | ||||||
| 4. Surgical time | ||||||
| 5. Postoperative outcomes | ||||||
| James (2017) [11]/Canada | Prospective | GA, EM or ET vs. GA, R-MM or R-MT (n=167) | 111 vs. 167 | 12.7 (2–18) | 1. Graft success rate | 12 mo |
| 2. Postoperative outcomes | ||||||
| Nassif et al. (2015) [12]/Italy | Retrospective | GA, underlay, EM vs. GA, underlay, R-MM (n=19) or E-MM (n=4) | 20 (M:F=10:12) vs. 23 (M:F=17:6) | 11 (7–16) vs. 9 (5–16) | 1. Graft success rate | 6–108 mo |
| 2. Hearing outcomes | ||||||
| 3. Surgical time | ||||||
| Harugop et al. (2008) [13]/India | RCT | Underlay, EM vs. underlay, R-MM (n=45) or E-MM (n=5) 90 Under LA; 10 under GA | 50 vs. 50 | 15–65 | 1. Graft success rate | 6 mo |
| 2. Hearing outcomes | ||||||
| 3. Canalplasty rate | ||||||
| 4. Cosmetic results | ||||||
| 5. Surgical time | ||||||
| Lade et al. (2014) [14]/India | RCT | Underlay, EM vs. underlay R-MM (n=30) >16 yr Under LA; ≤16 yr under GA | 30 (M:F=15:15) vs. 30 (M:F=13:17) | 28.30 (SD, 9.39) vs. 28.30 (SD, 9.39) | 1. Graft success rate | 6 mo |
| 2. Hearing outcomes | ||||||
| 3. Canalplasty rate | ||||||
| 4. Cosmetic result | ||||||
| 5. Postoperative outcomes | ||||||
| Raj and Meher (2001) [15]/India | Prospective | LA, underlay, EM vs. LA, underlay, E-MM (n=20) | 20 vs. 20 | NA | 1. Graft success rate | 10 wk |
| 2. Hearing outcomes | ||||||
| Lakpathi et al. (2016) [16]/India | Prospective | LA, underlay, EM vs. LA, underlay, R-MM (n=30) | 30 (M:F=18:12) vs. 30 (M:F=22:8) | 15–55 | 1. Graft success rate | 6 mo |
| 2. Hearing outcomes | ||||||
| 3. Cosmetic result | ||||||
| 4. Surgical time | ||||||
| 5. Postoperative outcomes | ||||||
| Kumar et al. (2015) [17]/India | Prospective | LA, underlay, EM vs. LA, underlay, R-MM (n=30) | 30 vs. 30 | 18–45 | 1. Graft success rate | 6 mo |
| 2. Hearing outcomes | ||||||
| 3. Canalplasty rate | ||||||
| 4. Cosmetic result | ||||||
| 5. Surgical time | ||||||
| 6. Postoperative outcomes | ||||||
| Dundar et al. (2014) [18]/Turkey | Retrospective | GA, underlay, EM vs. GA, underlay, R-MM (n=29) | 32 (M:F=14:17) vs. 29 (M:F=19:10) | 12.4 (10.04–14.76) vs. 11.89 (9.82–13.96) | 1. Graft success rate | 12 mo |
| 2. Hearing outcomes | ||||||
| 3. Canalplasty rate | ||||||
| 4. Surgical time | ||||||
| Kaya et al. (2017) [19]/Turkey | RCT | GA, underlay, ET vs. GA, underlay, R-MT (n=13) | 13 (M:F=6:7) vs. 13 (M:F=6:7) | 36.17±3.61 (17–53) vs. 36.17±3.61 (17–53) | 1. Graft success rate | 6 mo |
| 2. Hearing outcomes | ||||||
| 3. Postoperative outcomes | ||||||
| 4. Surgical time | ||||||
| Huang et al. (2016) [20]/Taiwan | Retrospective | GA, underlay, ET vs. GA, underlay, R-MT (n=50 ears) | 47 (M:F=17:30) vs. 48 (M:F=16:32) | 54.2±15.6 vs. 49.9±15.0 (13–82) | 1. Graft success rate | 6 mo |
| 2. Hearing outcomes | ||||||
| 3. Surgical time | ||||||
| Kuo and Wu (2017) [24]/Taiwan | Retrospective | GA, underlay, ET vs. GA, underlay, R-MT (n=6) or E-MT (n=51) | 74 (M:F=27:47) vs. 57 (M:F=25:32) | 57.49 (16–86) vs. 55.72 (15–77) | 1. Graft success rate | 3–12 mo |
| 2. Hearing outcomes | ||||||
| 3. Surgical time | ||||||
EES, endoscopic ear surgery; MES, microscopic ear surgery; RCT, randomized controlled trial; LA, local anesthesia; EM, endoscopic myringoplasty; R, retroauricular approach; MM, microscopic myringoplasty; M, male; F, female; GA, general anesthesia; ET, endoscopic tympanoplasty; MT, microscopic tympanoplasty; E, endaural approach; SD, standard deviation; NA, not available.