Suppr超能文献

比较经中颅窝和经乳突入路修复耳源性脑膨出和脑脊液漏的疗效和计费成本。

Comparing Outcomes and Billing Costs of Middle Cranial Fossa and Transmastoid Approaches for Otogenic Encephalocele and Cerebrospinal Fluid Leak Repair.

机构信息

Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Rush University Medical Center.

Rush Medical College.

出版信息

Otol Neurotol. 2022 Aug 1;43(7):e753-e759. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003576. Epub 2022 Jul 7.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Comparison of outcomes and billing costs of patients treated at our institution using transmastoid (TM), middle cranial fossa (MCF), and combined approaches for repair of otogenic cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks and encephaloceles.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort review.

SETTING

Tertiary-care hospital.

PATIENTS

Seventy-seven cases of otogenic CSF leaks or encephaloceles.

INTERVENTIONS

Surgical repair of an otogenic encephalocele or CSF leak using either a TM, MCF, or combined approach.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Success of repair, length of operation, cost of operating room materials, postoperative need for intensive care, and postoperative length of stay.

RESULTS

Forty cases (52%) were performed by the TM approach, 27 (35%) by MCF, and 10 (13%) by combined TM/MCF. Mean length of stay was not statistically different amongst TM patients (2.1 d), MCF patients (3.3 d), and combined TM/MCF patients (3.70; p = 0.112). Only 3/40 TM cases required intensive care during their admission while all MCF and combined TM/MCF approach cases were admitted to the intensive care unit for at least one night ( p < 0.001). On follow-up, CSF leak recurred in 3/77 (4%) cases: 3/27 (11%) MCF, 0/40 TM, and 0/10 combined TM/MCF patients ( p = 0.056). The mean cost of operating room materials charged to the patient was significantly greater in the MCF group ($9,883) than the TM group ($3,748; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In carefully selected patients, the TM approach is an effective and less costly alternative to MCF approaches for repair of otogenic CSF leaks and encephaloceles.

摘要

目的

比较在我院使用经乳突(TM)、中颅窝(MCF)和联合入路治疗耳源性脑脊液(CSF)漏和脑膨出患者的治疗效果和计费成本。

研究设计

回顾性队列研究。

设置

三级保健医院。

患者

77 例耳源性 CSF 漏或脑膨出患者。

干预措施

采用 TM、MCF 或联合入路手术修复耳源性脑膨出或 CSF 漏。

主要观察指标

修复成功率、手术时间、手术室材料费用、术后需要重症监护、术后住院时间。

结果

40 例(52%)采用 TM 入路,27 例(35%)采用 MCF 入路,10 例(13%)采用 TM/MCF 联合入路。TM 组患者(2.1 天)、MCF 组患者(3.3 天)和 TM/MCF 联合组患者(3.70 天)的平均住院时间无统计学差异(p=0.112)。仅 3/40TM 病例在住院期间需要重症监护,而所有 MCF 和 TM/MCF 联合入路病例至少需要入住重症监护病房一晚(p<0.001)。随访时,77 例患者中有 3 例(4%)发生 CSF 漏:3/27(11%)MCF 患者,0/40TM 患者,0/10TM/MCF 联合入路患者(p=0.056)。MCF 组患者手术室材料计费显著高于 TM 组($9883 比 $3748;p=0.001)。

结论

在精心选择的患者中,TM 入路是治疗耳源性 CSF 漏和脑膨出的有效且成本较低的 MCF 入路替代方法。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验