Acta otorrinolaringologica espanola · 2008
[Endonasal versus trans-canalicular endoscopic dacriocystorhinostomy using diode laser. Surgical techniques and outcomes].
Сравнительное исследованиеАннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание 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.
Piédrola Maroto David, Franco Sánchez Javier, Reyes Eldblom Robin, Monje Vega Elena, Conde Jiménez Manuel, Ortiz Rueda Manuel
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefits and disadvantages of the endoscopic endonasal versus transcanalicular approaches using diode laser, and to compare their clinical outcomes.
PATIENTS AND METHOD: A total of 127 patients were operated on, 80 of them with the endonasal approach (Group I) and 47 with the transcanalicular technique (Group II).
OUTCOMES: Epiphora improved completely in 67 patients in Group I (83.7 %) while the other 13 (16.2 %) continued to present the same symptoms. In Group II, a successful result was achieved in 39 patients (82.9 %) and 8 (17 %) of them had to be re-operated because of the persistence of epiphora.
CONCLUSIONS: The surgical outcomes are similar with both laser techniques. The main advantages of using diode laser are that it does not require general anaesthesia, the lower intra- and peri-operative morbidity, the lack of nasal packing and the greater ease of performing additional interventions if it fails. The only real disadvantage of laser procedures is the high cost.
PATIENTS AND METHOD: A total of 127 patients were operated on, 80 of them with the endonasal approach (Group I) and 47 with the transcanalicular technique (Group II).
OUTCOMES: Epiphora improved completely in 67 patients in Group I (83.7 %) while the other 13 (16.2 %) continued to present the same symptoms. In Group II, a successful result was achieved in 39 patients (82.9 %) and 8 (17 %) of them had to be re-operated because of the persistence of epiphora.
CONCLUSIONS: The surgical outcomes are similar with both laser techniques. The main advantages of using diode laser are that it does not require general anaesthesia, the lower intra- and peri-operative morbidity, the lack of nasal packing and the greater ease of performing additional interventions if it fails. The only real disadvantage of laser procedures is the high cost.