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.