Suppr超能文献

一项关于开放式乳突根治术与完壁式乳突根治术的随机、盲法研究,旨在确定观察中耳解剖结构和病理变化方面的差异。

A randomized, blinded study of canal wall up versus canal wall down mastoidectomy determining the differences in viewing middle ear anatomy and pathology.

作者信息

Hulka G F, McElveen J T

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA.

出版信息

Am J Otol. 1998 Sep;19(5):574-8.

PMID:9752963
Abstract

HYPOTHESIS

Canal wall down and intact canal wall tympanomastoidectomy represent two surgical approaches to middle ear pathology. The authors hypothesize that there is a difference in the ability to view structures in the middle ear between these two methods.

BACKGROUND

Depending on the individual, many surgeons have used the two different techniques of intact canal wall and canal wall down tympanomastoidectomy for approaching the middle ear. However, opinions conflict as to which approach provides the best visualization of different locations in the middle ear. This study prospectively evaluated temporal bones to determine the differences in visualizing structures of the middle ear using these two approaches.

METHODS

Twelve temporal bones underwent a standardized canal wall down tympanomastoidectomy using a reversible canal wall down technique. All bones were viewed in two dissections: intact canal wall and canal wall down preparations. Four points previously had been marked on each temporal bone in randomly assigned colors. These points include the sinus tympani, posterior crus of stapes, lateral epitympanum, and the Eustachian tube orifice. An observer blinded to the purpose of the study, color, and number of locations recorded the color and location of marks observed within the temporal bones. Randomized bones of two separate settings were viewed such that each bone was viewed in both the canal wall down and the intact canal wall preparations.

RESULTS

A significant difference was noted in the ability to observe middle ear pathology between the intact canal wall versus canal wall down tympanomastoidectomy, with the latter showing superiority (p < 0.001). Of the four subsites, the sinus tympani, posterior crus of stapes, and lateral epitympanum were observed more frequently with the canal wall down. There was no significant difference in the ability to observe the Eustachian tube orifice between the two techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Statistical analysis shows good reproducibility and randomization of this study. The canal wall down tympanomastoidectomy allowed for superior viewing of the three locations, sinus tympanic, posterior crus of stapes, and lateral at the tympanum, as they were marked in the study. This study shows the potential for improved visualization via the canal wall down tympanomastoidectomy. A significant amount of literature written by individuals and otology group practices is available retrospectively comparing the advantages and disadvantages of intact canal wall versus canal wall down mastoidectomy procedures for approaching middle ear pathology. In the interest of objectively evaluating the differences between these two approaches, we have studied temporal bones in a prospective randomized, blinded study comparing the two. Twelve bones were used and observed twice, once in each of 2 sessions. All bones were viewed in two dissections: intact canal wall and canal wall down mastoidectomy. Four points were marked on each temporal bone in three different colors applied in a randomized order to eliminate observer expectation. The four points marked include sinus tympani, posterior crus of the stapes footplate, lateral epitympanum, and Eustachian tube orifice. Both intact canal wall and canal wall down bones were provided randomly to the observer at each viewing session. Before the observer was allowed to see the dissections, those requiring replacement of the canal for the first session of the study had this done in a method using native posterior bony canal. Temporal bones were presented to an expert otologist in a randomized fashion with each temporal bone being placed in a temporal bone bowl holder and specialized framework, allowing for rotation and repositioning approximating the experience in an operating room setting. For each temporal bone, the observer filled in a questionnaire describing his or her observations by denoting both location and color of marks observed. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

摘要

假设

开放式和完壁式鼓室乳突切除术是针对中耳病变的两种手术方法。作者推测,这两种方法在观察中耳结构的能力上存在差异。

背景

根据个人情况,许多外科医生使用完壁式和开放式鼓室乳突切除术这两种不同技术来处理中耳病变。然而,对于哪种方法能最佳地观察中耳不同部位,存在不同观点。本研究前瞻性评估颞骨,以确定使用这两种方法观察中耳结构的差异。

方法

使用可逆开放式技术对12块颞骨进行标准化开放式鼓室乳突切除术。所有颞骨在两种解剖方式下观察:完壁式和开放式准备。在每块颞骨上预先用随机分配的颜色标记四个点。这些点包括鼓室窦、镫骨后脚、上鼓室外侧壁和咽鼓管开口。一名对研究目的、颜色和位置数量不知情的观察者记录在颞骨内观察到的标记的颜色和位置。观察两组分别随机选取的颞骨,使每块颞骨在开放式和完壁式准备中都被观察。

结果

完壁式与开放式鼓室乳突切除术在观察中耳病变的能力上存在显著差异,后者表现更优(p < 0.001)。在四个亚部位中,鼓室窦、镫骨后脚和上鼓室外侧壁在开放式手术中观察得更频繁。两种技术在观察咽鼓管开口的能力上无显著差异。

结论

统计分析表明本研究具有良好的可重复性和随机性。如本研究中所标记的,开放式鼓室乳突切除术能更好地观察鼓室窦、镫骨后脚和上鼓室外侧壁这三个部位。本研究显示了通过开放式鼓室乳突切除术改善可视化的潜力。有大量个人和耳科学组实践撰写的文献回顾性比较了完壁式与开放式乳突切除术处理中耳病变的优缺点。为了客观评估这两种方法的差异,我们进行了一项前瞻性随机、双盲研究,比较这两种方法对颞骨的观察。使用了12块颞骨,每块观察两次,每次在两个不同的操作中。所有颞骨在两种解剖方式下观察:完壁式和开放式乳突切除术。在每块颞骨上用三种不同颜色随机标记四个点,以消除观察者的预期。标记的四个点包括鼓室窦、镫骨底板后脚、上鼓室外侧壁和咽鼓管开口。在每次观察操作中,将完壁式和开放式颞骨随机提供给观察者。在观察者观察解剖结构之前,对于研究的第一个操作中需要更换耳道的颞骨,采用使用天然后骨管的方法进行更换。颞骨以随机方式呈现给一位专业耳科医生,每块颞骨放置在一个颞骨碗形支架和专门的框架中,允许旋转和重新定位,近似手术室环境中的操作体验。对于每块颞骨,观察者填写一份问卷,通过指出观察到的标记的位置和颜色来描述他或她的观察结果。(摘要截断)

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