Table 2.
Summary of FGF2 and EGF effects on human acute perforation.
| Authors | Study object | Study design | Size of perforation | Follow-up (months) | Treatment strategy | Closure rate | Mean closure time (days) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FGF2 group | Control group | FGF2 group | Control group | FGF2 group | Control group | |||||
| Lou et al. [31] (2011) | Children | Retrospective control study | Medium : large = 91 : 45 | 6 | FGF2 via GF | SH | 98.5% (64/65) | 85.3% (58/68) | 11.1 ± 1.9 | 28.6 ± 3.1 |
| Lou [32] (2012) | Adult | Randomized, controlled trial | ≥50% of TM | 6 | FGF2 alone or via GF | SH | 100% (32/32) and 97% (32/33) | 55% (16/29) | 12.7 ± 2.9 and 13.1 ± 3.3 | 46.25 ± 8.71 |
| Zhang and Lou [33] (2012) | Adult penetrating | Prospective controlled study | <25% of TM | 3 | FGF2 alone | SH | 100% (49/49) | 77% (34/44) | 12.6 ± 1.2 | 43.1 ± 2.5 |
| Lou and Wang [34] (2013) | Adult | Prospective, controlled study. | >50% of TM | 6 | FGF2 alone | SH and EA | 100% (20/20) | 56% (9/16) and 60% (12/20) | 12.4 ± 3.6 | 46.3 ± 8.7 and 48.2 ± 5.3 |
| Lou et al. [35] (2015) | Adult-blast induced | Prospective clinical study | >75% of TM | 6 | FGF2 alone | 94.1%(16/17) | 28.4 ± 10.9 | |||
| Lou et al. [36] (2016) | Adult subacute | Prospective control study | 1/8–1/2 of TM | 6 | FGF2 alone | SH | 11/12 (91.7%) | 9/17 (52.9%) | 9.2 ± 2.9 | 18.1 ± 11.4 |
| Lou et al. [37] (2016) | Adult | Prospective controlled study. | >25% of TM | 6 | FGF2 alone | GF and OFLX alone | 93.2% (68/73) | 85.7% (24/28) and 92.3% (36/39) | 12.3 ± 8.15 | 14.3 ± 5.44 and 13.97 ± 8.82 |
| Lou et al. [38] (2016) | Adults | Prospective clinical study. | >25% of TM | 3 | FGF2 alone | EGF alone and SH | 89.3% (25/28) | 86.2% (25/29) and 72.4% (21/29) | 13.7 ± 7.6 | 12.5 ± 7.1 and 28.1 ± 12.2 |
| Lou Z and Lou Z [39] (2017) | Adults | Randomized, controlled trial. | >25% of TM | 6 | FGF2 alone | EGF alone and OFLX alone | 93.18% (41/44) | 91.11% (41/45) and 95.65%(44/46) | 10 | 12 and 10 |
| Jin et al. [40] (2017) | Adults | Prospective, randomized, controlled clinical study. | >25% of TM | 6 | FGF2 via GF | GF vs. SH | 97.9% | 89.8% vs. 70.7% | 15.7 ± 5.1 | 24.8 ± 4.9 vs. 35.7 ± 9.2 days |
| Lou ZC and Lou ZH [41] (2018) | Adult | Randomized, controlled trial | >25% of TM | 12 | FGF2 | SH | 95.5% | 73.4% | 11.9 ± 3.1 | 52.6 ± 18.1 |
| Lou et al. [42] (2016) | Adult | Prospective, randomized clinical trial | ≥1/8 of TM | 6 months | 0.1–0.15 mL of EGF | SH | 91.4% (32/35) | 85.2% (29/34) | 8.9 ± 2.3 | 24.6 ± 9.7 |
| Yang et al. [43] (2016) | Adult | Retrospective case review | ≥25% of TM | 6 months | 0.1–0.15 mL of EGF | 0.1–0.15 mL of OFLX and SH | 93.5% (29/31) | 93.2% (41/44) and 82.2% (37/45) | 12.9 ± 5.3 | 13.3 ± 4.9 and 35.7 ± 9.2 |
| Lou ZC and Lou Z [44] (2018) | Adult | Prospective, randomized, controlled | ≥50% of TM | 6 months | 0.1–0.15 mL of EGF | Gelatin patch and SH | 97.8% | 86.7% and 82.2% | 11.12 ± 4.60 | 13.67 ± 5.37 and 25.65 ± 13.32 |
| Lou et al. [45] (2019) | Adult subacute | Prospective study | ≥1/8 of TM | 6 months | 0.1–0.15 mL of EGF | SH | 96.2% | 61.1% | 9.1 ± 3.9 | 20.6 ± 10.7 |
| Lou [46] (2019) | Adult chronic traumatic | Case observation study | 6 months | 0.1–0.15 mL of EGF | 100% (24/24) | 6.1 ± 2.3 days | ||||
SH: spontaneous healing; OFLX: ofloxacin drops; FGF2: fibroblast growth factor-2; EGF: epidermal growth factor; GF: Gelfoam; EA: edge approximation; TM: tympanic membrane.