Journal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus · 2000
Probing for nasolacrimal duct obstruction with intravenous propofol sedation.
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.
Movaghar M, Kodsi S, Merola C, Doyle J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Nasolacrimal duct obstruction occurs in 5% to 6% of neonates. Many studies advocate the probing of nasolacrimal duct obstruction under general inhalational anesthesia in patients at a late age (12 to 13 months) because a high percentage will resolve spontaneously. Others support early surgical intervention in patients aged younger than 6 to 9 months without anesthesia. We present late nasolacrimal duct probing under intravenous propofol sedation as an alternative approach to the treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction with a decrease in cost and time compared with probing under general inhalational anesthesia.
METHODS: We made a retrospective review of patient charts of children who underwent nasolacrimal duct probing with intravenous propofol sedation from April 1996 to September 1997. Procedure time and cost of procedure were compared for patients who had probings under propofol sedation to patients who had probings under general anesthesia.
RESULTS: A total of 22 patients (31 eyes) underwent nasolacrimal duct probing with propofol sedation; the patients' ages ranged from 11.5 to 39 months (average age, 17.8 months). Twenty-six (84%) of 31 eyes had resolution of the symptoms. The average total time for procedure under propofol sedation was 10.5 minutes, compared with 43.6 minutes under general inhalational anesthesia. The average total recovery time under propofol sedation was 13.6 minutes, compared with 121.1 minutes with general inhalational anesthesia. The cost of probing under propofol sedation was one third less than the cost of probing under general inhalational anesthesia.
DISCUSSION: Late probing for nasolacrimal duct obstruction under intravenous propofol sedation is comparable in efficacy to late probing under general inhalational anesthesia with a shorter time for the procedure and decreased expense.
METHODS: We made a retrospective review of patient charts of children who underwent nasolacrimal duct probing with intravenous propofol sedation from April 1996 to September 1997. Procedure time and cost of procedure were compared for patients who had probings under propofol sedation to patients who had probings under general anesthesia.
RESULTS: A total of 22 patients (31 eyes) underwent nasolacrimal duct probing with propofol sedation; the patients' ages ranged from 11.5 to 39 months (average age, 17.8 months). Twenty-six (84%) of 31 eyes had resolution of the symptoms. The average total time for procedure under propofol sedation was 10.5 minutes, compared with 43.6 minutes under general inhalational anesthesia. The average total recovery time under propofol sedation was 13.6 minutes, compared with 121.1 minutes with general inhalational anesthesia. The cost of probing under propofol sedation was one third less than the cost of probing under general inhalational anesthesia.
DISCUSSION: Late probing for nasolacrimal duct obstruction under intravenous propofol sedation is comparable in efficacy to late probing under general inhalational anesthesia with a shorter time for the procedure and decreased expense.