The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2021
Diaphragm pacing using the minimally invasive cervical approach.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Headley Don B, Martins Antonio G, McShane Kevin J, Grossblat David A
Аннотация
CONTEXT: The implantation of commercially available phrenic nerve/diaphragm pacers has been available for more than 40 years and has enabled thousands of patients in over 40 countries to achieve freedom from invasive mechanical ventilation.
OBJECTIVE: The cervical approach to implantation of these pacers is described, as are the pros and cons of using this technique compared to intrathoracic and sub-diaphragmatic.
METHODS: Study design was a retrospective review of 1,522 subjects from the Avery Biomedical Devices (ABD) database who were implanted with the Avery diaphragm pacer. Long term statistics from patients implanted with diaphragm pacers are presented as well.
RESULTS: 17% of cervically placed electrodes required at least one replacement compared to 18% of electrodes placed thoracically. Devices implanted cervically show no significant difference in their longevity than those implanted using the thoracic approach (P value of 0.9382 using Two-Sample t-Test). The mean longevity for both approaches was found to be 6.4 years. The majority of electrodes implanted have never required replacement. A majority of CCHS patients were implanted using the thoracic approach and only find it necessary to use the device during sleeping hours. Most of the cervically implanted patients are found to be older at the time of implantation and implanted for diagnoses that require longer daily use of the device.
CONCLUSION: The cervical approach for the implantation of phrenic nerve/diaphragm pacers is the most minimally invasive, but underutilized, technique that allows for the use of local or monitored anesthesia, does not require entering any body cavities, and keeps incision size small.
OBJECTIVE: The cervical approach to implantation of these pacers is described, as are the pros and cons of using this technique compared to intrathoracic and sub-diaphragmatic.
METHODS: Study design was a retrospective review of 1,522 subjects from the Avery Biomedical Devices (ABD) database who were implanted with the Avery diaphragm pacer. Long term statistics from patients implanted with diaphragm pacers are presented as well.
RESULTS: 17% of cervically placed electrodes required at least one replacement compared to 18% of electrodes placed thoracically. Devices implanted cervically show no significant difference in their longevity than those implanted using the thoracic approach (P value of 0.9382 using Two-Sample t-Test). The mean longevity for both approaches was found to be 6.4 years. The majority of electrodes implanted have never required replacement. A majority of CCHS patients were implanted using the thoracic approach and only find it necessary to use the device during sleeping hours. Most of the cervically implanted patients are found to be older at the time of implantation and implanted for diagnoses that require longer daily use of the device.
CONCLUSION: The cervical approach for the implantation of phrenic nerve/diaphragm pacers is the most minimally invasive, but underutilized, technique that allows for the use of local or monitored anesthesia, does not require entering any body cavities, and keeps incision size small.