Suppr超能文献

中耳填塞:创伤性黏膜动物模型中不同材料的比较。

Middle ear packing: comparison of materials in an animal model of mucosal trauma.

机构信息

Department of Otolaryngology, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida 33136-1015, USA.

出版信息

Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011 May;144(5):763-9. doi: 10.1177/0194599810395115.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare absorbable gelatin sponge (AGS) with an injectable esterified hyaluronic acid (EHA) as middle ear packing material after mucosal trauma.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized, blinded, and controlled study.

SETTING

Tertiary university-based hospital.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Twenty-three guinea pigs underwent middle ear surgery with mucosal trauma performed on both ears and one ear packed with either EHA or AGS. Contralateral ears were used as nonpacked paired controls. Auditory brainstem response (ABR) thresholds were measured preoperatively and repeated at 1, 2, and 6 weeks postoperatively. Macroscopic and microscopic analysis measured inflammatory reaction in each group.

RESULTS

ABR threshold changes from baseline in the EHA and both control groups were minor. Threshold levels were higher in the AGS group compared with the AGS control group. This trend was seen in each frequency tested at each time interval. Macroscopic analysis showed tympanic membrane perforation was rare, effusions were common in the AGS group, mucosal edema was most frequent in the AGS group, and unabsorbed packing was usually detected in the AGS group with little EHA detectable at 6 weeks. Microscopic analysis showed normal mucosal healing in all groups. Two AGS ears demonstrated excessive middle ear packing with exuberant osteoneogenesis.

CONCLUSIONS

Middle ear function and mucosal healing after surgery occurred similarly between the EHA control group and the EHA group. In contrast, the AGS group demonstrated worse hearing and a greater level of osteoneogenesis compared with the AGS control group. These results support EHA as an alternative middle ear packing material in otologic surgery.

摘要

目的

比较可吸收明胶海绵(AGS)和注射用酯化透明质酸(EHA)作为中耳填塞材料在黏膜创伤后的效果。

研究设计

随机、盲法、对照研究。

设置

三级大学附属医院。

受试者和方法

23 只豚鼠双耳行中耳手术并造成黏膜创伤,一侧耳用 EHA 或 AGS 填塞,对侧耳不填塞作为配对对照。术前及术后 1、2、6 周分别行听性脑干反应(ABR)阈值测试。宏观和微观分析评估各组的炎症反应。

结果

EHA 组和双侧对照耳组的 ABR 阈值变化均较小。AGS 组的阈值较 AGS 对照组高。这种趋势在每个时间点的每个测试频率上均可见。宏观分析显示鼓膜穿孔少见,AGS 组中耳积液多见,AGS 组黏膜水肿最常见,6 周时通常可检测到未吸收的填塞物,而 EHA 很少见。微观分析显示所有组的黏膜愈合正常。2 只 AGS 耳的中耳填塞过多,伴有明显的成骨过度。

结论

EHA 对照组和 EHA 组的中耳功能和黏膜愈合在术后相似。相比之下,AGS 组的听力较 AGS 对照组差,成骨过度明显。这些结果支持 EHA 作为耳科手术中替代中耳填塞材料的选择。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验