European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2019
Comparison of two routes in nasal passage for transnasale flexible fiberoptic laryngoscopy.
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.
Cengiz Ceyhun, Şahin Ender, Dağıstan Hakan, Can İlknur Haberal
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Present study compares two routes in nasal passage for transnasal flexible fiberoptic laryngoscopy (TNFFL).
METHODS: Included in the study were 60 patients who were split equally into Group 1 and Group 2 and all underwent TNFFL. The tip of endoscope was introduced between the septum and inferior turbinate along the nasal floor in Group 1 and between the inferior turbinate and middle turbinate in Group 2. O2 saturation, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure of patients were taken 30 min before and immediately after procedure. Patients were asked to rate the pain-irritation, gag reflex, dyspnea they experienced during procedure using visual analogue scale. Two routes were compared in terms of physiological effects and patient comfort.
RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found between two groups in terms of physiological effects or patient comfort. When values recorded immediately after procedure were compared with baseline values, a significant decrease was observed in O2 saturation and heart rate in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively. No clinically detectable symptoms were observed in the patients.
CONCLUSION: Decreases in O2 saturation and heart rate may be regarded as physiological effects of TNFFL. No significant difference between two routes was noted in the present study in terms of physiological effects and patient comfort during TNFFL. Introducing the endoscope between the inferior and middle turbinates may be a comfortable and safe option, particularly if the endoscope cannot be advanced along the nasal floor due to septum deviation, septal crest, inferior turbinate hypertrophy.
METHODS: Included in the study were 60 patients who were split equally into Group 1 and Group 2 and all underwent TNFFL. The tip of endoscope was introduced between the septum and inferior turbinate along the nasal floor in Group 1 and between the inferior turbinate and middle turbinate in Group 2. O2 saturation, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure of patients were taken 30 min before and immediately after procedure. Patients were asked to rate the pain-irritation, gag reflex, dyspnea they experienced during procedure using visual analogue scale. Two routes were compared in terms of physiological effects and patient comfort.
RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found between two groups in terms of physiological effects or patient comfort. When values recorded immediately after procedure were compared with baseline values, a significant decrease was observed in O2 saturation and heart rate in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively. No clinically detectable symptoms were observed in the patients.
CONCLUSION: Decreases in O2 saturation and heart rate may be regarded as physiological effects of TNFFL. No significant difference between two routes was noted in the present study in terms of physiological effects and patient comfort during TNFFL. Introducing the endoscope between the inferior and middle turbinates may be a comfortable and safe option, particularly if the endoscope cannot be advanced along the nasal floor due to septum deviation, septal crest, inferior turbinate hypertrophy.