Rhinology · 2006
Long term effects of cutting forceps in endoscopic sinus surgery.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vauterin Tom, Vander Poorten Vincent, Jorissen Mark
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: At present, some authors prefer cutting forceps to conventional non-cutting forceps in Endoscopic Sinus Surgery, based on the assumption of superior wound healing due to mucosal preservation, without any proof of better clinical outcome. The purpose of this study was to elaborate our previously reported short-term results, by evaluating the long-term outcome.
METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients, who underwent a bilateral Endoscopic Sinus Surgery procedure, received follow-up in a prospective, double-blinded way. Cutting forceps had been randomly used on one side and non-cutting forceps on the other side. Lateralised symptoms (headache, maxillary pressure, nasal obstruction and secretions) and endoscopic findings (secretion, pus, blood, crusts, oedema, polyps and adhesions) were evaluated on both sides 1 year postoperatively.
RESULTS: Both types of instruments gave satisfactory healing situations. Similar to the short-term follow-up results, no significant difference in the global symptom and endoscopic score between the 2 types of instruments was found. The analysis of individual symptoms and endoscopic parameters also showed no difference.
CONCLUSION: Cutting forceps do not result in a better subjective or endoscopic healing evaluation after one year, compared to non-cutting forceps.
METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients, who underwent a bilateral Endoscopic Sinus Surgery procedure, received follow-up in a prospective, double-blinded way. Cutting forceps had been randomly used on one side and non-cutting forceps on the other side. Lateralised symptoms (headache, maxillary pressure, nasal obstruction and secretions) and endoscopic findings (secretion, pus, blood, crusts, oedema, polyps and adhesions) were evaluated on both sides 1 year postoperatively.
RESULTS: Both types of instruments gave satisfactory healing situations. Similar to the short-term follow-up results, no significant difference in the global symptom and endoscopic score between the 2 types of instruments was found. The analysis of individual symptoms and endoscopic parameters also showed no difference.
CONCLUSION: Cutting forceps do not result in a better subjective or endoscopic healing evaluation after one year, compared to non-cutting forceps.