The Journal of laryngology and otology · 2008
Comparison of external and endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Feretis M, Newton J R, Ram B, Green F
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: External dacryocystorhinostomy has been the treatment for nasolacrimal duct obstruction for more than a century. More recently, nasal endoscopy has allowed this procedure to be carried out endonasally.
AIM: The aim of this postal questionnaire study was to compare the health status of patients treated for epiphora by external versus endonasal non-laser dacryocystorhinostomy.
METHOD: The Glasgow benefit inventory questionnaire, along with an additional, department-based symptomatic questionnaire, was distributed to all patients fitting our criteria.
RESULTS: Satisfactorily completed questionnaires were received from 64 out of 90 patients in the external group and from 30 of 41 patients in the endonasal group. Results indicated positive scores for both groups for all four subscales of the Glasgow benefit inventory. There were no statistically significant differences between results for the external and endonasal procedures. The ocular symptomatology questionnaire results indicated better scores for the external procedure, but this difference did not reach statistical significance.
AIM: The aim of this postal questionnaire study was to compare the health status of patients treated for epiphora by external versus endonasal non-laser dacryocystorhinostomy.
METHOD: The Glasgow benefit inventory questionnaire, along with an additional, department-based symptomatic questionnaire, was distributed to all patients fitting our criteria.
RESULTS: Satisfactorily completed questionnaires were received from 64 out of 90 patients in the external group and from 30 of 41 patients in the endonasal group. Results indicated positive scores for both groups for all four subscales of the Glasgow benefit inventory. There were no statistically significant differences between results for the external and endonasal procedures. The ocular symptomatology questionnaire results indicated better scores for the external procedure, but this difference did not reach statistical significance.