HNO · 2023
[Experiences with endoscopic ear surgery of a German tertiary hospital for otolaryngology].
Аннотация 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.
Flockerzi Veronika, Schick Bernhard, Bozzato Alessandro
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of this article is to report on the integration of endoscopic ear surgery (EES) into daily clinical practice.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a monocentric prospective study, the endoscopy unit was set up during even weeks over a period of 10 months and the procedure was primarily started endoscopically via a transmeatal approach. In odd weeks, the endoscopy was omitted. A total of 60 procedures in 59 patients were evaluated. Points of comparison were intraoperative vision, incision-suture time, postoperative hearing outcome, and postoperative otoscopic findings.
RESULTS: With the exception of the facial nerve (p = 0.15 Mann-Whitney U‑test), the EES showed significantly improved visualization of all areas in the middle ear. The incision-suture times were similar in both methods. If bimanual placement of an ossicular prosthesis was necessary, the incision-suture time increased disproportionately (MES: 57.18 ± 9.7 min, EES: 76.83 ± 24.99 min; p = 0.019, *). There were no statistically significant changes related to hearing outcomes when comparing EES with the microscopic technique. There were no postoperative complications in the EES surgery group.
CONCLUSION: Integration of EES proved to be successful and advantageous in a real patient collective at this location.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a monocentric prospective study, the endoscopy unit was set up during even weeks over a period of 10 months and the procedure was primarily started endoscopically via a transmeatal approach. In odd weeks, the endoscopy was omitted. A total of 60 procedures in 59 patients were evaluated. Points of comparison were intraoperative vision, incision-suture time, postoperative hearing outcome, and postoperative otoscopic findings.
RESULTS: With the exception of the facial nerve (p = 0.15 Mann-Whitney U‑test), the EES showed significantly improved visualization of all areas in the middle ear. The incision-suture times were similar in both methods. If bimanual placement of an ossicular prosthesis was necessary, the incision-suture time increased disproportionately (MES: 57.18 ± 9.7 min, EES: 76.83 ± 24.99 min; p = 0.019, *). There were no statistically significant changes related to hearing outcomes when comparing EES with the microscopic technique. There were no postoperative complications in the EES surgery group.
CONCLUSION: Integration of EES proved to be successful and advantageous in a real patient collective at this location.