Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery · 2008
Consensus statement on the classification and terminology of neck dissection.
Consensus StatementРекомендацииСтатьяОбзорНазвание 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.
Robbins K Thomas, Shaha Ashok R, Medina Jesus E, Califano Joseph A, Wolf Gregory T, Ferlito Alfio, Som Peter M, Day Terry A, Committee for Neck Dissection Classification, American Head and Neck Society
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To update the guidelines for neck dissection terminology, as previously recommended by the American Head and Neck Society.
PARTICIPANTS: Committee for Neck Dissection Classification, American Head and Neck Society; representation from the Committee for Head and Neck Surgery and Oncology, American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (T.A.D.).
EVIDENCE: Review of current literature on neck dissection classification.
CONSENSUS PROCESS: Semiannual face-to-face meetings of the Committee for Neck Dissection Terminology and e-mail correspondence.
CONCLUSIONS: Standardization of terminology for neck dissection is important for communication among clinicians and researchers. New recommendations have been made regarding the following: boundaries between levels I and II and between levels III/IV and VI; terminology of the superior mediastinal nodes; and the method of submitting surgical specimens for pathologic analysis.
PARTICIPANTS: Committee for Neck Dissection Classification, American Head and Neck Society; representation from the Committee for Head and Neck Surgery and Oncology, American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (T.A.D.).
EVIDENCE: Review of current literature on neck dissection classification.
CONSENSUS PROCESS: Semiannual face-to-face meetings of the Committee for Neck Dissection Terminology and e-mail correspondence.
CONCLUSIONS: Standardization of terminology for neck dissection is important for communication among clinicians and researchers. New recommendations have been made regarding the following: boundaries between levels I and II and between levels III/IV and VI; terminology of the superior mediastinal nodes; and the method of submitting surgical specimens for pathologic analysis.