• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

两种腺样体切除术技术的疗效和安全性比较研究:传统刮除腺样体切除术与内镜下微动力系统切除术的比较。

A comparative study of two adenoidectomy technics for efficacy and safety: Conventional curettage adenoidectomy versus endoscopic microdebrider adenoidectomy.

机构信息

Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Medient ENT Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Ankara Atatürk Sanatoryum Training and Research Hospital, Gulhane Faculty of Medicine, Health Science University Turkey, Ankara, Turkey.

出版信息

Am J Otolaryngol. 2023 Jul-Aug;44(4):103807. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2023.103807. Epub 2023 Mar 9.

DOI:10.1016/j.amjoto.2023.103807
PMID:36906963
Abstract

PURPOSE

Conventional cold curettage adenoidectomy (CCA) is the most used method for Adenoidectomy. With the advances in surgical instruments, endoscopy assisted less invasive techniques are coming into use. Herein we compared CCA with endoscopic microdebrider adenoidectomy (EMA) in terms of safety and recurrence.

METHODS

Patients who underwent adenoidectomy in our clinic between 2016 and 2021 years were included into the study. Study performed retrospectively. Patients operated with CCA accepted as GroupA and EMA as GroupB. Two groups compared for the recurrence rate and post-operative complications.

RESULTS

We studied 833 children aged between 3 and 12 years (mean 4,2 years old), had adenoidectomy, including 482 male(57.86 %) and 351 female (42.14 %). There were 473 patients in GroupA, and 360 patients in GroupB. Seventeen patients (%3.59) in GroupA had reoperation for the recurrence of adenoid tissue. There was no recurrence in GroupB. Residual tissue, recurrent hypertrophy, and postoperative otitis media rates were higher in GroupA, and this was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Whereas ventilation tube insertion rates didn't differ significantly (p > 0.05). Although hypernasality rate at second week was slightly higher in GroupB, this was not statistically significant (p > 0.05), and in further period it resolved in all patients. No major complications were reported.

CONCLUSION

Our study indicates that EMA is a safer technique than CCA, and prominent postoperative complications like residual adenoid tissue, recurrent adenoid hypertrophy, and postoperative otitis media with effusion rates are lower.

摘要

目的

传统的冷刮腺样体切除术(CCA)是腺样体切除术最常用的方法。随着手术器械的进步,内镜辅助的微创技术也在应用中。在此,我们比较了 CCA 和内镜微动力切除术(EMA)在安全性和复发方面的差异。

方法

我们将 2016 年至 2021 年间在我院行腺样体切除术的患者纳入研究。研究为回顾性研究。接受 CCA 手术的患者归入 A 组,接受 EMA 手术的患者归入 B 组。比较两组的复发率和术后并发症。

结果

我们研究了 833 名年龄在 3 至 12 岁之间(平均 4.2 岁)的儿童,他们接受了腺样体切除术,其中 482 名男性(57.86%)和 351 名女性(42.14%)。A 组 473 例,B 组 360 例。A 组有 17 例(3.59%)因腺样体组织复发而行再次手术。B 组无复发。A 组残留组织、复发肥大和术后中耳炎的发生率较高,差异有统计学意义(p<0.05)。而通气管插入率差异无统计学意义(p>0.05)。虽然 B 组术后第 2 周鼻音过高的发生率略高,但差异无统计学意义(p>0.05),且在随后的时间内所有患者均得到缓解。未报告严重并发症。

结论

我们的研究表明,EMA 是一种比 CCA 更安全的技术,术后并发症如残留腺样体组织、复发腺样体肥大和术后分泌性中耳炎的发生率较低。

相似文献

1
A comparative study of two adenoidectomy technics for efficacy and safety: Conventional curettage adenoidectomy versus endoscopic microdebrider adenoidectomy.两种腺样体切除术技术的疗效和安全性比较研究:传统刮除腺样体切除术与内镜下微动力系统切除术的比较。
Am J Otolaryngol. 2023 Jul-Aug;44(4):103807. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2023.103807. Epub 2023 Mar 9.
2
How we do it: a combined method of traditional curette and power-assisted endoscopic adenoidectomy.我们的做法:传统刮匙与电动辅助内镜下腺样体切除术相结合的方法。
Acta Otolaryngol. 2009 May;129(5):556-9. doi: 10.1080/00016480802294377.
3
Comparison between curettage adenoidectomy and endoscopic-assisted microdebrider adenoidectomy in terms of Eustachian tube dysfunction.经比较,腺样体刮除术与内镜辅助微动力切割术治疗咽鼓管功能障碍的疗效。
Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2020 Jan-Feb;86(1):38-43. doi: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2018.08.004. Epub 2018 Sep 25.
4
Endoscopic assisted powered adenoidectomy versus conventional adenoidectomy - a randomised controlled trial.内镜辅助动力腺样体切除术与传统腺样体切除术的随机对照试验
J Laryngol Otol. 2019 Apr;133(4):289-293. doi: 10.1017/S0022215119000550.
5
Comparison of Endoscope-Assisted Coblation Adenoidectomy to Conventional Curettage Adenoidectomy in Terms of Postoperative Eustachian Tube Function.内镜辅助下低温等离子腺样体切除术与传统腺样体刮除术术后咽鼓管功能的比较
J Craniofac Surg. 2020 Jun;31(4):919-923. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000006039.
6
Endoscopic nasopharyngeal exploration at the end of conventional curettage adenoidectomy.经传统腺样体切除术刮除术末端行内镜鼻咽探查。
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2012 Mar;269(3):1037-40. doi: 10.1007/s00405-011-1739-z. Epub 2011 Aug 11.
7
Comparative analysis of conventional cold curettage versus endoscopic assisted coblation adenoidectomy.传统冷刮除术与内镜辅助低温等离子腺样体切除术的对比分析
J Laryngol Otol. 2019 Apr;133(4):294-299. doi: 10.1017/S0022215119000227. Epub 2019 Mar 19.
8
Comparison of transnasal and transoral routes of microdebrider combined curettage adenoidectomy and assessment of endoscopy for residue: a randomized prospective study.经鼻与经口微动力系统联合腺样体切除术切除残留的对比:一项随机前瞻性研究。
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2021 Mar;278(3):797-805. doi: 10.1007/s00405-020-06385-x. Epub 2020 Sep 28.
9
Trans-oral endoscopic assisted radio-frequency for adenoid ablation; A randomized prospective comparative clinical study.经口内镜辅助射频治疗腺样体消融术:一项随机前瞻性对照临床研究。
Auris Nasus Larynx. 2021 Aug;48(4):710-717. doi: 10.1016/j.anl.2020.11.010. Epub 2020 Nov 28.
10
Rigid endoscopic evaluation of conventional curettage adenoidectomy.传统腺样体刮除术的硬质内镜评估
J Laryngol Otol. 2011 Jan;125(1):53-8. doi: 10.1017/S0022215110002100. Epub 2010 Oct 18.