The Journal of laryngology and otology · 2021
The outcomes of endoscopic approach for attic cholesteatoma: underwater continuous drilling versus traditional intermittent drilling.
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.
Wang D, Zhao X, Li W, Li X, Zhu R, Wang W
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyse the differences between underwater continuous drilling and traditional intermittent drilling for attic cholesteatoma.
METHODS: The clinical data of 61 patients with attic cholesteatoma who underwent an endoscopic approach procedure were analysed. Forty patients underwent underwater continuous drilling (group A), and 21 patients underwent traditional intermittent drilling (group B).
RESULTS: The operation time was 64.61 ± 12.90 minutes in group A and 79.60 ± 16.81 minutes in group B (p < 0.05). The anaesthesia time was 102.69 ± 17.93 minutes in group A and 119.82 ± 19.28 minutes in group B (p < 0.05). The dry ear time, the hearing improvement rate and the post-operative complications were no different in the two groups.
CONCLUSION: Group A and group B had no differences in surgical outcome or hearing recovery. However, treatment in the former group resulted in a significantly shortened operation and anaesthesia time.
METHODS: The clinical data of 61 patients with attic cholesteatoma who underwent an endoscopic approach procedure were analysed. Forty patients underwent underwater continuous drilling (group A), and 21 patients underwent traditional intermittent drilling (group B).
RESULTS: The operation time was 64.61 ± 12.90 minutes in group A and 79.60 ± 16.81 minutes in group B (p < 0.05). The anaesthesia time was 102.69 ± 17.93 minutes in group A and 119.82 ± 19.28 minutes in group B (p < 0.05). The dry ear time, the hearing improvement rate and the post-operative complications were no different in the two groups.
CONCLUSION: Group A and group B had no differences in surgical outcome or hearing recovery. However, treatment in the former group resulted in a significantly shortened operation and anaesthesia time.