Evidence Hub

Success and safety of endoscopic versus microscopic resection of temporal bone paraganglioma: a meta-analysis

Chaushu H, Butrus F, Oron Y, Handzel O, Abu-Eta R, Muhanna N, Ungar OJ

European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2024

Abstract

PURPOSE: Temporal bone paraganglioma (TBP) are the most common tumors of the middle ear. They pose a challenge in otologic surgery due to their extensive vascularity and intricate location within the middle ear. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of two surgical approaches, microscopic middle ear surgery (MMES) and endoscopic middle ear surgery (EMES), in the resection of TBP.

METHODS: Eligible studies published after 1988 were identified through systematic searches of "PubMed", "Scopus" and "Google Scholar". Retrospective studies and randomized/non-randomized control trials reporting on surgical approaches for TBP with a minimum of five adult patients were included.

RESULTS: A total of 595 records were initially identified. After removing 229 duplicates, 349 articles were excluded based upon article subject, title and abstract. Following the review of full texts, 13 articles were assessed for eligibility. The pooled analysis included a total of 529 ears, with a complication rate of 7.8% for EMES and 14.2% for MMES. Subgroup differences indicated no significant variation between the two methods (p = 0.2945).

CONCLUSION: Both EMES and MMES demonstrated favorable surgical outcomes with low complication rates for TBP resection. These findings suggest that EMES is a safe and effective method for TBP resection and one that is comparable to MMES. Since the risk of bleeding is significant in these tumors, a third-hand technique, endoscopic bipolar cautery…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free