Acta otorrinolaringologica espanola · 2017
Transoral oropharyngeal resection classification: Proposal of the SCORL working group.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Virós Porcuna David, Avilés Jurado Francisco, Pollán Guisasola Carlos, Ramírez Ruiz Rosa Delia, García Lorenzo Jacinto, Tobed Secall Marc, Vilaseca González Isabel, Costa González José Miguel, Soteras Olle Josep, Casamitjana Claramunt Francesc, Sumarroca Trouboul Anna, Hijano Esqué Rafael, Viscasillas Pallàs Guillem, Mañós Pujol Manel, Quer Agustí Miquel
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION AND GOALS: There has been a very significant increase in the use of minimally invasive surgery has in the last decade. In order to provide a common language after transoral surgery of the oropharynx, a system for classifying resections has been created in this area, regardless of the instrumentation used.
METHODS: From the Oncology Working Group of the Catalan Society of Otorhinolaryngology, a proposal for classification based on a topographical division of the different areas of the oropharynx is presented, as also based on the invasion of the related structures according to the anatomical routes of extension of these tumours.
RESULTS: The classification starts using the letter D or I according to laterality either right (D) or left (I). The number of the resected area is then placed. This numbering defines the zones beginning at the cranial level where area I would be the soft palate, lateral area II in the tonsillar area, area III in the tongue base, area IV in the glossoepiglottic folds, epiglottis and pharyngoepiglottic folds, area V posterior oropharyngeal wall and VI the retromolar trigone. The suffix p is added if the resection deeply affects the submucosal plane of the compromised area. The different proposed areas would, in theory, have different functional implications.
CONCLUSIONS: Proposal for a system of classification by area to definedifferent types of transoral surgery of the oropharynx, and enable as sharing of results and helps in teaching this type of technique.
METHODS: From the Oncology Working Group of the Catalan Society of Otorhinolaryngology, a proposal for classification based on a topographical division of the different areas of the oropharynx is presented, as also based on the invasion of the related structures according to the anatomical routes of extension of these tumours.
RESULTS: The classification starts using the letter D or I according to laterality either right (D) or left (I). The number of the resected area is then placed. This numbering defines the zones beginning at the cranial level where area I would be the soft palate, lateral area II in the tonsillar area, area III in the tongue base, area IV in the glossoepiglottic folds, epiglottis and pharyngoepiglottic folds, area V posterior oropharyngeal wall and VI the retromolar trigone. The suffix p is added if the resection deeply affects the submucosal plane of the compromised area. The different proposed areas would, in theory, have different functional implications.
CONCLUSIONS: Proposal for a system of classification by area to definedifferent types of transoral surgery of the oropharynx, and enable as sharing of results and helps in teaching this type of technique.