Roland Lauren T, Skillington S Andrew, Ogden M Allison
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.
Laryngoscope. 2017 Nov;127(11):2510-2516. doi: 10.1002/lary.26610. Epub 2017 May 7.
To review the literature and conduct a meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness and safety of the combined endoscopic-transfacial approach for parotid sialolith management.
PubMed 1946-, Embase 1947-, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Review Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, clinicaltrials.gov, Proquest Dissertations and Theses, and FirstSearch Proceedings to March 2015.
Published prospective or retrospective English-language studies with reported outcomes of more than one patient undergoing the combined endoscopic-transfacial procedure for parotid sialolithiasis were included. Two independent authors screened all eligible studies and reviewed and extracted data from relevant publications. Weighted pooled proportions for stone removal, symptom improvement, gland preservation, and complications were calculated.
Ten studies, primarily retrospective single-institution studies, were included in the final analysis, with a total of 184 patients. Overall, the procedure was noted to be successful with low risk; the weighted pooled proportions were 0.99 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.97 to 1.00) for stone removal, 0.97 (95% CI: 0.93 to 0.99) for symptom improvement, 1 (95% CI: 0.99 to 1.00) for gland preservation, and 0.06 (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.15) for complications.
Although our analysis is primarily based on retrospective data, the evidence shown here suggests that the combined endoscopic-transfacial technique is an effective treatment for parotid gland sialolithiasis not amenable to intraoral or purely endoscopic removal. This approach results in high rates of symptom improvement and gland preservation. The complication rates are low, further supporting the use of this technique. Laryngoscope, 127:2510-2516, 2017.
回顾文献并进行荟萃分析,以确定联合内镜经面部入路治疗腮腺涎石病的有效性和安全性。
PubMed(1946年起)、Embase(1947年起)、护理及相关健康文献累积索引、Cochrane系统评价数据库、Cochrane系统评价摘要数据库、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库、clinicaltrials.gov、Proquest学位论文数据库以及截至2015年3月的FirstSearch会议录。
纳入发表的前瞻性或回顾性英文研究,这些研究报告了不止1例患者接受联合内镜经面部手术治疗腮腺涎石病的结果。两名独立作者筛选所有符合条件的研究,并从相关出版物中回顾和提取数据。计算结石清除、症状改善、腺体保留和并发症的加权合并比例。
最终分析纳入了10项研究,主要是回顾性单机构研究,共184例患者。总体而言,该手术被认为成功率高且风险低;结石清除的加权合并比例为0.99(95%置信区间[CI]:0.97至1.00),症状改善的加权合并比例为0.97(95%CI:0.93至0.99),腺体保留的加权合并比例为1(95%CI:0.99至1.00),并发症的加权合并比例为0.06(95%CI:0.01至0.15)。
尽管我们的分析主要基于回顾性数据,但此处所示证据表明,联合内镜经面部技术是治疗不适合经口或单纯内镜切除的腮腺涎石病的有效方法。这种方法导致症状改善率和腺体保留率较高。并发症发生率低,进一步支持了该技术的应用。《喉镜》,2017年,第127卷,第2510 - 2516页