European annals of otorhinolaryngology, head and neck diseases · 2016
Interest of video-assisted minimally invasive surgery in primary hyperparathyroidism.
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.
Garrel R, Bartolomeo M, Makeieff M, Crampette L, Guerrier B, Cartier C
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Surgery is the only radical and definitive treatment for primary hyperparathyroidism. Exploration of the four parathyroid sites is giving way to minimally invasive techniques. The present study sought to compare two minimally invasive parathyroidectomy techniques, by classical cervicotomy (MIP-C) and by video-assistance (MIP-VA), in terms of success rate, complications rate, operating time, and patient and community physician satisfaction.
MATERIALS AND METHOD: A non-randomized retrospective comparative study included 112 patients presenting with primary hyperparathyroidism with identified parathyroid adenoma, operated on between January 2005 and October 2010. The two groups were constituted according to the surgeons' habitual practice: 54 cases of MIP-VA and 58 of MIP-C.
RESULTS: Results for MIP-VA and MIP-C were respectively: success, 96.3% vs. 100% (P=0.09); mean scar size, 1.47 vs. 3.43cm (P<0.01); hypocalcemia, 2 vs. 3 cases (P=0.1); theater time, 94.25 vs. 76min (P=0.02); and postoperative stay, 1.08 vs. 1.37 days (P=0.07). Patient satisfaction was comparable between groups, while 93.3% of community physicians found MIP-VA preferable to MIP-C, although only 39.3% had known the MIP-VA technique.
CONCLUSION: With efficacy, morbidity and patient satisfaction comparable to classical surgery, MIP-VA significantly reduced cervicotomy size and hospital stay. Community physicians considered it to be preferable to MIP-C.
MATERIALS AND METHOD: A non-randomized retrospective comparative study included 112 patients presenting with primary hyperparathyroidism with identified parathyroid adenoma, operated on between January 2005 and October 2010. The two groups were constituted according to the surgeons' habitual practice: 54 cases of MIP-VA and 58 of MIP-C.
RESULTS: Results for MIP-VA and MIP-C were respectively: success, 96.3% vs. 100% (P=0.09); mean scar size, 1.47 vs. 3.43cm (P<0.01); hypocalcemia, 2 vs. 3 cases (P=0.1); theater time, 94.25 vs. 76min (P=0.02); and postoperative stay, 1.08 vs. 1.37 days (P=0.07). Patient satisfaction was comparable between groups, while 93.3% of community physicians found MIP-VA preferable to MIP-C, although only 39.3% had known the MIP-VA technique.
CONCLUSION: With efficacy, morbidity and patient satisfaction comparable to classical surgery, MIP-VA significantly reduced cervicotomy size and hospital stay. Community physicians considered it to be preferable to MIP-C.