Effectiveness of meatoplasty techniques alone or as adjunct to other surgeries in chronic ear disease: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Meatoplasty is a surgical procedure that is used to treat chronic ear conditions such as chronic otitis media, cholesteatoma, and external auditory canal stenosis. Despite its widespread use, there is a lack of comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of different meatoplasty approaches and their long-term outcomes. This systematic review aims to systematically analyze the existing studies to evaluate the effectiveness of meatoplasty and its approaches with a focus on surgical outcomes, postoperative complications, and patient satisfaction across diverse surgical approaches and patient demographics. Methods: The searches from databases like PubMed and Google Scholar for studies on meatoplasty in chronic ear surgeries from 2010 to 2024. Seventeen studies were selected based on predefined inclusion criteria, focusing on success rates, complications, and long-term outcomes. Data were extracted on patient demographics, surgical techniques, and outcomes, and the quality of evidence was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scaleand the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. Results: The analysis of the included studies revealed diverse patient populations and varying meatoplasty approaches for treating chronic ear conditions. Most studies reported positive outcomes, with significant improvements in ear dryness, hearing, and symptom relief. Postoperative complications, such as meatal stenosis and granulation tissue, were rare and manageable, while the long-term follow-up was crucial for preventing restenosis. However, meatoplasty proved effective in restoring ear canal function, with both one-cut and Z -plasty techniques showing favorable results. Conclusion: Advancements in meatoplasty and related surgical techniques have shown great success in managing chronic ear conditions, alleviating symptoms, enhancing hearing, and improving overall quality of life. Their effectiveness is evident in high graft success rates and low complication rates, with innovative approaches and careful postoperative care effectively managing rare issues like stenosis, ensuring favorable long-term results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".