Suppr超能文献

内镜修复 1 型喉裂和深部杓状软骨间切迹:冷器械与激光的比较。

Endoscopic Repair of Type 1 Laryngeal Clefts and Deep Interarytenoid Notches: Cold Steel Versus Laser.

机构信息

Division of Pediatric Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.A.

Department of Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.A.

出版信息

Laryngoscope. 2021 Dec;131(12):2805-2810. doi: 10.1002/lary.29684. Epub 2021 Jun 29.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Endoscopic repair is the preferred surgical treatment for type 1 laryngeal clefts (T1LCs) and deep interarytenoid notches (DINs). No studies exist showing differences in repair rates using laser and cold steel. Our objective is to assess overall success and revision rate for endoscopic cleft repair and determine whether there is any difference in surgical outcomes between cold steel and laser techniques.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective chart review, cohort study.

METHODS

Retrospective review at a quaternary care pediatric hospital. Included all patients who underwent endoscopic repair for T1LCs and DINs between January 2010 and December 2019. Demographics, comorbidities, surgical data, outcomes, and revision status were collected and analyzed. We excluded patients who did not have a follow-up at our institution.

RESULTS

A total of 194 patients were identified, 14 were excluded for lack of follow-up data so 180 were analyzed. Of these, 127 had cold steel repair and 53 had laser repair. There is no significant difference in demographics or comorbidities. In the cold steel group, 4 of 127 (3.1%) had breakdown and in the laser group, 10 of 53 (18.9%) had breakdown. Patients who failed after a cold steel repair tended to break down later (median 12.7 months) when compared to laser repairs (median 2.1 months). Nine of the 10 patients with breakdown after laser repair were noted on initial postoperative evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic cleft repair is a well-described and effective method for repair of T1LCs and DINs. Both cold steel and laser have high success rates; however, higher failure rates were noted in the laser repair group. Failure after laser repair may occur earlier than failure after cold steel repair. But this did not reach significance.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 131:2805-2810, 2021.

摘要

目的/假设:内镜修复是治疗 1 型喉裂(T1LC)和深部杓状软骨间切迹(DIN)的首选手术方法。目前尚无研究表明激光和冷钢在修复率方面存在差异。我们的目的是评估内镜裂修复的总体成功率和修复率,并确定冷钢和激光技术在手术结果方面是否存在差异。

研究设计

回顾性图表审查,队列研究。

方法

在一家四级儿科医院进行回顾性审查。纳入 2010 年 1 月至 2019 年 12 月期间接受 T1LC 和 DIN 内镜修复的所有患者。收集并分析了人口统计学、合并症、手术数据、结果和修复状态。我们排除了在我们机构没有随访的患者。

结果

共确定了 194 例患者,其中 14 例因缺乏随访数据而被排除在外,因此分析了 180 例。其中,127 例采用冷钢修复,53 例采用激光修复。两组患者的人口统计学和合并症无显著差异。在冷钢组中,4 例(3.1%)发生破裂,在激光组中,10 例(18.9%)发生破裂。冷钢修复后失败的患者破裂时间较晚(中位时间为 12.7 个月),而激光修复组破裂时间较早(中位时间为 2.1 个月)。激光修复后破裂的 10 例患者中,9 例在术后初次评估时即发现。

结论

内镜裂修复是治疗 T1LC 和 DIN 的一种成熟且有效的方法。冷钢和激光均具有较高的成功率;然而,激光修复组的失败率较高。激光修复后失败的发生时间可能早于冷钢修复后失败的发生时间。但这并未达到显著水平。

证据水平

3 级喉镜,131:2805-2810,2021。

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