Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale · 2010
Minimally invasive parathyroidectomy under local anesthesia: patient satisfaction and overall outcome.
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.
Chau Jason K M, Hoy Monica, Tsui Ban, Harris Jeffrey R
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare minimally invasive parathyroidectomy (MIP) under local anesthesia (MIPULA) to minimally invasive parathyroidectomy performed under general anesthesia (MIPUGA) in terms of postoperative pain, postanesthetic side effects, patient satisfaction, and overall outcome.
DESIGN: Prospective comparative cohort study.
METHODS: Consecutive consenting patients presenting to a single surgeon's practice were enrolled into MIPULA or MIPUGA groups if inclusion criteria were satisfied. A standard anesthesia and surgical protocol was followed for all included patients. Subjective outcome measurements (pain, overall satisfaction, and other variables) were achieved through questionnaires. Objective outcomes were also measured.
RESULTS: Seventy-four patients were enrolled: 58 in the MIPULA group and 16 in the MIPUGA group. Operative time and hospital stay were significantly shorter in the MIPULA group. Subjectively, the MIPULA group was significantly more ready for discharge versus the MIPUGA group. No significant difference in overall satisfaction between groups was noted. Biochemical cure and conversion (MIPULA to general anesthesia open exploration) rates for our cohort were 100% and 4%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: MIPULA confers significantly shorter operative time and hospital stay with no significant difference in subjective postoperative pain, patient satisfaction, overall outcome, or cure rate when compared to MIPUGA. Provided that appropriate preoperative localization and surgical experience are present, MIPULA can be offered to patients as a safe and reasonable alternative to MIPUGA.
DESIGN: Prospective comparative cohort study.
METHODS: Consecutive consenting patients presenting to a single surgeon's practice were enrolled into MIPULA or MIPUGA groups if inclusion criteria were satisfied. A standard anesthesia and surgical protocol was followed for all included patients. Subjective outcome measurements (pain, overall satisfaction, and other variables) were achieved through questionnaires. Objective outcomes were also measured.
RESULTS: Seventy-four patients were enrolled: 58 in the MIPULA group and 16 in the MIPUGA group. Operative time and hospital stay were significantly shorter in the MIPULA group. Subjectively, the MIPULA group was significantly more ready for discharge versus the MIPUGA group. No significant difference in overall satisfaction between groups was noted. Biochemical cure and conversion (MIPULA to general anesthesia open exploration) rates for our cohort were 100% and 4%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: MIPULA confers significantly shorter operative time and hospital stay with no significant difference in subjective postoperative pain, patient satisfaction, overall outcome, or cure rate when compared to MIPUGA. Provided that appropriate preoperative localization and surgical experience are present, MIPULA can be offered to patients as a safe and reasonable alternative to MIPUGA.