American journal of otolaryngology · 2004
Office-based foreign-body management using videoendoscope.
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.
Sato Kiminori, Nakashima Tadashi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The videoendoscope has a small charge-coupled device (CCD) chip built into its tip that provides a clear image. This report concerns office-based pharyngeal and laryngeal foreign-body management using a videoendoscope.
METHODS: Three types of videoendoscopes (videoendoscopes equipped with and also without a hood at their tips and a rigid videoendoscope) were used in this study. Seventeen patients who complained of pharyngeal and laryngeal foreign bodies were treated with these videoendoscopes.
RESULTS: The advantages of this intervention were (1) videoendoscopes presented clear dynamic color images on a color video monitor and provided excellent resolution and recording and thus yielded high diagnostic accuracy and fine intervention; (2) the videoendoscope's diameter was relatively small and resulted in less discomfort for patients, even for children; (3) patients could be examined and treated in a sitting position on a procedure chair at the otolaryngology outpatient clinic, which obviated general anesthesia; (4) the videoendoscope equipped with a hood enabled treatment in a closed cavity like the hypopharynx; (5) minute foreign bodies located at the portion of the pharynx, which were hard to examine, could be depicted clearly; (6) pernasal endoscopy allowed the doctor to examine patients who had a strong gag reflex; and (7) good image documentation on the color video monitor allowed the physician to carry out safe intervention. A disadvantage of this procedure was that the extraction of different kinds of foreign bodies was limited, but it depended in part on the efficacy of the forceps.
CONCLUSION: Foreign-body extraction using a videoendoscope is one of the reliable procedures that has widened the indications for office-based endoscopy.
METHODS: Three types of videoendoscopes (videoendoscopes equipped with and also without a hood at their tips and a rigid videoendoscope) were used in this study. Seventeen patients who complained of pharyngeal and laryngeal foreign bodies were treated with these videoendoscopes.
RESULTS: The advantages of this intervention were (1) videoendoscopes presented clear dynamic color images on a color video monitor and provided excellent resolution and recording and thus yielded high diagnostic accuracy and fine intervention; (2) the videoendoscope's diameter was relatively small and resulted in less discomfort for patients, even for children; (3) patients could be examined and treated in a sitting position on a procedure chair at the otolaryngology outpatient clinic, which obviated general anesthesia; (4) the videoendoscope equipped with a hood enabled treatment in a closed cavity like the hypopharynx; (5) minute foreign bodies located at the portion of the pharynx, which were hard to examine, could be depicted clearly; (6) pernasal endoscopy allowed the doctor to examine patients who had a strong gag reflex; and (7) good image documentation on the color video monitor allowed the physician to carry out safe intervention. A disadvantage of this procedure was that the extraction of different kinds of foreign bodies was limited, but it depended in part on the efficacy of the forceps.
CONCLUSION: Foreign-body extraction using a videoendoscope is one of the reliable procedures that has widened the indications for office-based endoscopy.