[Differences in Myringoplasty Between Endoscopic and Microscope].
H L Li,Z F Zhang,M X Xie,T L Ren,W Q Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.13201/j.issn.1001-1781.2017.13.013
2017-01-01
Abstract:Objective:The intraoperative and postoperative clinical indexes of myringoplasty performed by endoscope or by microscope were collected retrospectively, the differences between the two different surgical methods were analysized. Method:Retrospective analysis of the clinical data of 70 cases (70 ears) udergoing myringoplasty in the department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, at the Second People's Hospital of Kashi from June 2014 to August 2015. According to the surgical approach cases were divided into two groups, 30 cases in group A by endoscopic myringoplasty and 40 cases in group B by microscope myringoplasty. The operation time, blood loss, postoperative dry ear time, wound healing scar hyperplasia, tympanic membrane perforation rate and hearing improvement rate were compared between the two groups, and SPSS 19.0 statistical software was used to analyze the differences between the two groups. Result:The operation time: Group A had an average of (35.23±6.38)min, less than group B (42.60±7.97)min, with statistical difference (P<0.05). The intraoperative blood loss: the average of group A was (7.33±2.11)ml, less than group B (17.93±3.84)ml, with statistical difference (P<0.05). The postoperative dry ear time more than 1 month: group A was 40%, lower than Group B (75%), with statistical difference (P<0.05). The postoperative incision healing scar hyperplasia: group A was 0%, lower than group B (5%), no significant difference (P>0.05). The tympanic membrane perforation rate: group A was 3.33%, lower than group B (7.5%), no significant difference (P>0.05). The postoperative hearing improvement rate: group A was 76.67%, lower than group B (80.00%), no significant difference (P>0.05). Conclusion:Compared with the traditional microscope surgery, endoscopic myringoplasty is a minimally invasive surgical technique which can get the same curative effect, but with a shorter operation time, less intraoperative blood loss, dry ear in shorter time , recovery more quickly, beautiful incision and other advantages. So it is worthy of clinical application.