The Journal of laryngology and otology · 2017
Primary versus secondary tracheoesophageal puncture: systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Chakravarty P D, McMurran A E L, Banigo A, Shakeel M, Ah-See K W
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Tracheoesophageal puncture represents the 'gold standard' for voice restoration following laryngectomy. Tracheoesophageal puncture can be undertaken primarily during laryngectomy or in a separate secondary procedure. There is no current consensus on which approach is superior. The current evidence comparing primary and secondary tracheoesophageal puncture was assessed.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of articles comparing outcomes for primary and secondary tracheoesophageal puncture after laryngectomy were conducted. Outcome measures were: voice success, overall complication rate and pharyngocutaneous fistula rate.
RESULTS: Eleven case series met the inclusion criteria, two prospective and nine retrospective. Meta-analysis did not demonstrate statistically significant differences in overall complication rate or voice outcomes, though it suggested a significantly increased risk of pharyngocutaneous fistula in primary compared to secondary tracheoesophageal puncture.
CONCLUSION: Primary tracheoesophageal puncture is a safe and efficient approach for voice rehabilitation. However, secondary tracheoesophageal puncture should be preferred where there is a higher risk of pharyngocutaneous fistula.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of articles comparing outcomes for primary and secondary tracheoesophageal puncture after laryngectomy were conducted. Outcome measures were: voice success, overall complication rate and pharyngocutaneous fistula rate.
RESULTS: Eleven case series met the inclusion criteria, two prospective and nine retrospective. Meta-analysis did not demonstrate statistically significant differences in overall complication rate or voice outcomes, though it suggested a significantly increased risk of pharyngocutaneous fistula in primary compared to secondary tracheoesophageal puncture.
CONCLUSION: Primary tracheoesophageal puncture is a safe and efficient approach for voice rehabilitation. However, secondary tracheoesophageal puncture should be preferred where there is a higher risk of pharyngocutaneous fistula.