Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-8lnk4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-31T14:34:41.763Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Microscopic versus endoscopic stapes surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2022

J Hajiioannou*
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, University Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece
E Gkrinia
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, University Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece
K Tzimkas-Dakis
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, University Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece
E Palla
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, University Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece
A Brotis
Affiliation:
Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece
C Korais
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, University Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece
A Saratziotis
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, University Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece
V Lachanas
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, University Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece
C Skoulakis
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, University Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece
*
Author for correspondence: Prof Jiannis Hajiioannou, ENT Department, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Thessaly – University Hospital of Larissa, Biopolis, 41110 Larissa, Greece E-mail: jhajiioannou@gmail.com

Abstract

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety characteristics of endoscopic and microscopic stapes surgery based on current evidence.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted of three medical databases, focusing on randomised, controlled studies or observational studies. Data related to the efficacy and safety of each technique were extracted. Outcome data were summarised using the pooled mean differences or pooled odds ratios, along with their 95 per cent confidence intervals.

Results

Thirteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. Success rate was evaluated by estimating air–bone gap improvement; this revealed comparable outcomes for the two techniques (mean difference = −0.20; 95 per cent confidence interval = −0.53, 0.14). No statistically significant difference was detected concerning post-operative complications, except for dysgeusia (odds ratio = −1.12; 95 per cent confidence interval = −1.97, −0.28) and pain (odds ratio = −2.00; 95 per cent confidence interval = −2.97, −1.04), which favoured the endoscopic approach.

Conclusion

Though both techniques result in commensurate outcomes concerning success rate, post-operative pain and dysgeusia favour the endoscopic approach. Further high-quality studies are needed to adequately compare the two methods.

Information

Type
Review Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable