Pain After Ear Surgery: A Prospective Evaluation of Endoscopic and Microscopic Approaches

Objectives/Hypothesis Assumed advantages of a minimally invasive endoscopic transmeatal approach in ear surgery are less postoperative pain, faster healing, and preservation of functional anatomy. We evaluated pain after ear surgery and compared endoscopic transmeatal, microscopic endaural, and retroauricular approaches. Study Design Prospective cohort study. Methods A prospective evaluation of pain during 3 weeks after ear surgery was performed. Three groups were defined: endoscopic transmeatal, microscopic endaural, and retroauricular. Data from 20 fully completed questionnaires (Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form) per group were analyzed with Bayesian and frequentist statistics. Results For all approaches, low pain scores were found, not exceeding 4 on a scale of 0 to 10. Analysis of the worst, least, and average pain scores documented per 24 hours showed no statistically significant difference nor equality between groups. With Bayesian statistics, a Bayes factor of 1.07, 0.25, and 0.51 was found, respectively. With frequentist statistics apvalue of .092, .783, and 0.291 was found, respectively. Small, but statistically significant, differences were found for sleep, natural sleeping position, normal work, and pain medication taken. The location of pain correlates with the incision site. Conclusions The results of this study show that the surgical approach has no clinically relevant influence on postoperative pain after ear surgery. The statistically significant differences on natural sleeping position, sleep, normal work, and amount of pain medication taken are small and should be interpreted with caution. Therefore, these should not be decisive factors in the choice of surgical approach in ear surgery. Level of Evidence 3Laryngoscope, 2020