Endoscopic versus microscopic surgery for treatment of middle ear cholesteatoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic ear surgery (EES) is minimally invasive and increasingly used to treat middle ear disease. In this meta-analysis, we compared the efficacies of EES and microscopic ear surgery (MES) in patients with middle ear cholesteatoma.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies that reported the comparative surgical outcomes of EES and MES in patients with middle ear cholesteatoma. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement. All included studies involved ≥1 of the following outcomes: recurrence of or residual disease, graft intake success rate, audiological performance, and operation time. We calculated the pooled relative risk (RR) or weighted mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) by using STATA software.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included in the quantitative meta-analysis. The pooled recurrence and residual rates of cholesteatoma were significantly lower in the EES group than in the MES group [RR: 0.51, 95%CI: 0.31-0.84, heterogeneity (I2) = 4.7%; P = .394; RR: 0.68; 95%CI: 0.47-0.99; I2 = 0.0%; P = .878; respectively]. There were no significant differences in other parameters, such as graft intake success rates, audiological performance, and operation times, between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

The pooled results showed that EES reduced the residual lesion rate and postoperative recurrence risk in patients with middle ear cholesteatoma. However, there was insufficient evidence to prove that EES was advantageous in graft intake success rate auditory performance, and operation time.