Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology · 2017
Advantages of submandibular gland preservation surgery over submandibular gland resection for proximal submandibular stones.
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.
Xiao Jin-Qing, Sun Hai-Jiang, Qiao Qi-Hui, Bao Xin, Wu Chuan-Bin, Zhou Qing
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare surgical outcomes after the removal of submandibular gland (SMG) stones via 2 different surgical methods.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From June 2015 to July 2016, a total of 40 patients with SMG stones were selected from the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Stomatology, China Medical University (Shenyang, China), and were randomly assigned to 2 groups. Twenty patients underwent sialendoscopy-assisted stone removal via extraoral incision with preservation of the SMG, and 20 patients underwent traditional SMG resection. The outcomes of the 2 surgical procedures were assessed.
RESULTS: The operation time and hospital stay were shorter in the SMG preservation group than the SMG resection group. There were no significant differences in stone size or location between the groups. The mean visual analog scale (VAS) score was lower in the SMG preservation group than the SMG resection group. All patients in the SMG resection group exhibited varying degrees of scarring and concave deformity on the face and neck, whereas all patients in the SMG preservation group retained intact facial morphology.
CONCLUSIONS: Sialendoscopy-assisted stone removal with preservation of the SMG exhibited many advantages relative to traditional SMG resection.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From June 2015 to July 2016, a total of 40 patients with SMG stones were selected from the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Stomatology, China Medical University (Shenyang, China), and were randomly assigned to 2 groups. Twenty patients underwent sialendoscopy-assisted stone removal via extraoral incision with preservation of the SMG, and 20 patients underwent traditional SMG resection. The outcomes of the 2 surgical procedures were assessed.
RESULTS: The operation time and hospital stay were shorter in the SMG preservation group than the SMG resection group. There were no significant differences in stone size or location between the groups. The mean visual analog scale (VAS) score was lower in the SMG preservation group than the SMG resection group. All patients in the SMG resection group exhibited varying degrees of scarring and concave deformity on the face and neck, whereas all patients in the SMG preservation group retained intact facial morphology.
CONCLUSIONS: Sialendoscopy-assisted stone removal with preservation of the SMG exhibited many advantages relative to traditional SMG resection.