Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale · 2011
Open versus endoscopic septoplasty: a single-blinded, randomized, controlled trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное 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.
Paradis Josée, Rotenberg Brian W
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: A deviated septum can be corrected by either a conventional "open" or endoscopic approach. Controversy exists regarding comparative outcomes between these two techniques. Our objective was to compare the two according to subjective and objective criteria.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, single-blinded, randomized, controlled trial.
METHODS: Over a 6-month period, all patients diagnosed with a septal deviation meeting strict inclusion/exclusion criteria were recruited. Patients were randomly assigned to either the conventional or the endoscopic group. Outcome measures included surgical time, intraoperative complications, and pre- and postoperative data from the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) questionnaire. Chi-square and t-tests were used for statistical analyses.
RESULTS: Sixty-three patients were enrolled in the study: 32 in the endoscopic group and 31 in the conventional group. There were subjective postoperative improvements in the NOSE scores across all participants and within both groups (endoscopic: preoperative mean score = 14.7, postoperative mean score = 7.4, p < .05; conventional: preoperative mean score = 15.2, postoperative mean score = 6.3, p < .05), with no differences found between groups (p = .61). However, objective outcomes such as operative time (p < .001) and intraoperative complications (p = .01) favoured the endoscopic group.
CONCLUSION: The endoscopic approach for septoplasty may be considered superior to the traditional approach for the correction of septal deviation.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, single-blinded, randomized, controlled trial.
METHODS: Over a 6-month period, all patients diagnosed with a septal deviation meeting strict inclusion/exclusion criteria were recruited. Patients were randomly assigned to either the conventional or the endoscopic group. Outcome measures included surgical time, intraoperative complications, and pre- and postoperative data from the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) questionnaire. Chi-square and t-tests were used for statistical analyses.
RESULTS: Sixty-three patients were enrolled in the study: 32 in the endoscopic group and 31 in the conventional group. There were subjective postoperative improvements in the NOSE scores across all participants and within both groups (endoscopic: preoperative mean score = 14.7, postoperative mean score = 7.4, p < .05; conventional: preoperative mean score = 15.2, postoperative mean score = 6.3, p < .05), with no differences found between groups (p = .61). However, objective outcomes such as operative time (p < .001) and intraoperative complications (p = .01) favoured the endoscopic group.
CONCLUSION: The endoscopic approach for septoplasty may be considered superior to the traditional approach for the correction of septal deviation.