Conclusion
The endoscope had comparable graft uptake rate and hearing improvement compared to the microscope. However, it had a significant difference in surgical duration with the endoscope offering faster completion of procedure than the microscope. The Endoscope offered the advantages of a wide panoramic view, magnification without loss of resolution, and superior visualization, making it a wonderful tool to perform surgery especially for anterior perforation, avoiding postaural incision and canaloplasty. Thus, with the endoscope, minimally invasive surgery can be performed avoiding unnecessary tissue dissection, and retraction decreasing the surgical duration, complications, morbidity, and indirectly decreasing the financial burden.