Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery · 2011
Sialoendoscopy: prognostic factors for endoscopic removal of salivary stones.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Luers Jan Christoffer, Grosheva Maria, Stenner Markus, Beutner Dirk
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To detect prognostic factors for successful sialoendoscopic removal of salivary stones.
DESIGN: Retrospective case series.
SETTING: Tertiary referral hospital.
PATIENTS: Forty-nine consecutive patients who underwent sialoendoscopy for sialolithiasis between January 1, 2008, and January 1, 2010, at University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
INTERVENTIONS: Diagnostic and interventional sialoendoscopy using local anesthesia.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Stone removal rate, size, mobility, shape, and location, as well as clinical follow-up data.
RESULTS: Sixty-one percent (39 of 64) of all salivary stones were removed endoscopically. The cutoff point for endoscopic removal was between 5 and 6 mm in stone diameter. Small size, good mobility, round or oval, and distal location of a salivary stone were positive prognostic factors for sialoendoscopic removal, with sialolith mobility having the greatest effect in multivariate analysis.
CONCLUSION: Small size, good mobility, round or oval, and distal location of a salivary stone in the main duct predict significantly greater probability of endoscopic removal and consequently are positive prognostic factors.
DESIGN: Retrospective case series.
SETTING: Tertiary referral hospital.
PATIENTS: Forty-nine consecutive patients who underwent sialoendoscopy for sialolithiasis between January 1, 2008, and January 1, 2010, at University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
INTERVENTIONS: Diagnostic and interventional sialoendoscopy using local anesthesia.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Stone removal rate, size, mobility, shape, and location, as well as clinical follow-up data.
RESULTS: Sixty-one percent (39 of 64) of all salivary stones were removed endoscopically. The cutoff point for endoscopic removal was between 5 and 6 mm in stone diameter. Small size, good mobility, round or oval, and distal location of a salivary stone were positive prognostic factors for sialoendoscopic removal, with sialolith mobility having the greatest effect in multivariate analysis.
CONCLUSION: Small size, good mobility, round or oval, and distal location of a salivary stone in the main duct predict significantly greater probability of endoscopic removal and consequently are positive prognostic factors.