Cranio : the journal of craniomandibular practice · 2016
Single-needle arthrocentesis (Shepard cannula) vs. double-needle arthrocentesis for treating disc displacement without reduction.
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.
Talaat Wael, Ghoneim Mohamed M, Elsholkamy Mohammed
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To compare single- vs. double-needle arthrocentesis with viscosupplementation for treating disc displacement without reduction of the temporomandibular joint.
METHODS: Fifty-six patients with a magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis of non-reducing disc displacement were included. Arthrocentesis with viscosupplementation was performed on patients in group I using the Y-shaped needle (Shepard cannula) technique; the standard double-needle technique was performed on patients in group II. Patients were evaluated on postoperative day 1, and 1, 3, and 6 months later, patient- and procedure-related parameters were assessed.
RESULTS: In both groups, significant improvement in the baseline levels was achieved (p < 0.01). Both techniques were equally effective at reducing pain and increasing the maximal mouth opening. The single-needle technique was easier to perform and required a shorter operative time (p < 0.01).
DISCUSSION: Single-needle (Shepard cannula) arthrocentesis can be an alternative to the standard technique; however, it might add to the cost of the procedure.
METHODS: Fifty-six patients with a magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis of non-reducing disc displacement were included. Arthrocentesis with viscosupplementation was performed on patients in group I using the Y-shaped needle (Shepard cannula) technique; the standard double-needle technique was performed on patients in group II. Patients were evaluated on postoperative day 1, and 1, 3, and 6 months later, patient- and procedure-related parameters were assessed.
RESULTS: In both groups, significant improvement in the baseline levels was achieved (p < 0.01). Both techniques were equally effective at reducing pain and increasing the maximal mouth opening. The single-needle technique was easier to perform and required a shorter operative time (p < 0.01).
DISCUSSION: Single-needle (Shepard cannula) arthrocentesis can be an alternative to the standard technique; however, it might add to the cost of the procedure.