Effectiveness of endoscopic versus external surgical approaches in the treatment of orbital complications of rhinosinusitis: a systematic review protocol.

Vimal Sekhar, Jack Ao, Isma Iqbal, Eng Hooi Ooi, Zachary Munn
{"title":"Effectiveness of endoscopic versus external surgical approaches in the treatment of orbital complications of rhinosinusitis: a systematic review protocol.","authors":"Vimal Sekhar,&nbsp;Jack Ao,&nbsp;Isma Iqbal,&nbsp;Eng Hooi Ooi,&nbsp;Zachary Munn","doi":"10.11124/JBISRIR-2017-003972","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This review aims to investigate and compare the effectiveness of endoscopic drainage techniques against external drainage techniques for the treatment of orbital and subperiosteal abscesses as a complication of rhinosinusitis.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Transnasal endoscopic drainage and external drainage techniques have been used in the management of subperiosteal orbital abscesses secondary to rhinosinusitis. Each of these approaches has its own advantages and disadvantages, with extensive literature describing each technique separately. However, there is a lack of guidance in the studies on assessing and comparing the safety, effectiveness and suitability of these techniques. This review aims to compare the effectiveness of these techniques based on measuring outcomes in the literature such as: length of postoperative hospital stay, rate of revision surgery and complication rates.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>Eligible studies will include people of all ages diagnosed with subperiosteal abscess, orbital abscess or cavernous sinus thrombosis (Chandler stages III-V) secondary to rhinosinusitis disease, who have also undergone drainage via either an endoscopic approach, external approach or combined surgical approach.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search of both published and unpublished literature will be performed to uncover studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Reference lists of studies included in final analyses will also be manually searched and subject matter experts contacted to investigate other sources of literature. Two reviewers will screen studies and a third reviewer will resolve disagreements. Studies will, where possible, be pooled in statistical meta-analysis with heterogeneity of data being assessed using the standard Chi-squared and I tests.</p>","PeriodicalId":73539,"journal":{"name":"JBI database of systematic reviews and implementation reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.11124/JBISRIR-2017-003972","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBI database of systematic reviews and implementation reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBISRIR-2017-003972","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Objective: This review aims to investigate and compare the effectiveness of endoscopic drainage techniques against external drainage techniques for the treatment of orbital and subperiosteal abscesses as a complication of rhinosinusitis.

Introduction: Transnasal endoscopic drainage and external drainage techniques have been used in the management of subperiosteal orbital abscesses secondary to rhinosinusitis. Each of these approaches has its own advantages and disadvantages, with extensive literature describing each technique separately. However, there is a lack of guidance in the studies on assessing and comparing the safety, effectiveness and suitability of these techniques. This review aims to compare the effectiveness of these techniques based on measuring outcomes in the literature such as: length of postoperative hospital stay, rate of revision surgery and complication rates.

Inclusion criteria: Eligible studies will include people of all ages diagnosed with subperiosteal abscess, orbital abscess or cavernous sinus thrombosis (Chandler stages III-V) secondary to rhinosinusitis disease, who have also undergone drainage via either an endoscopic approach, external approach or combined surgical approach.

Methods: A comprehensive search of both published and unpublished literature will be performed to uncover studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Reference lists of studies included in final analyses will also be manually searched and subject matter experts contacted to investigate other sources of literature. Two reviewers will screen studies and a third reviewer will resolve disagreements. Studies will, where possible, be pooled in statistical meta-analysis with heterogeneity of data being assessed using the standard Chi-squared and I tests.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
内镜与外部手术入路治疗鼻窦炎眶并发症的有效性:一项系统回顾方案。
目的:本综述旨在探讨和比较内窥镜引流技术与外引流技术治疗鼻鼻窦炎并发症眶及骨膜下脓肿的有效性。简介:经鼻内镜引流和外引流技术已被用于治疗继发于鼻窦炎的眶骨膜下脓肿。每种方法都有自己的优点和缺点,有大量的文献分别描述了每种技术。然而,在评估和比较这些技术的安全性、有效性和适宜性的研究中缺乏指导。本综述的目的是比较这些技术的有效性,基于测量文献中的结果,如:术后住院时间、翻修手术率和并发症发生率。纳入标准:符合条件的研究将包括所有年龄的诊断为继发于鼻窦炎疾病的骨膜下脓肿、眼眶脓肿或海绵窦血栓形成(Chandler III-V期)的患者,并通过内窥镜入路、外入路或联合手术入路进行引流。方法:对已发表和未发表的文献进行全面检索,以发现符合纳入标准的研究。还将手动检索最终分析中包含的研究参考清单,并联系主题专家调查其他文献来源。两名审稿人将筛选研究,第三名审稿人将解决分歧。在可能的情况下,研究将合并在统计荟萃分析中,使用标准卡方检验和I检验评估数据的异质性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Approaches to implementing individual placement and support in the health and welfare sectors: a scoping review protocol. Obesity and dental caries in early childhood: a systematic review protocol. Experiences of family caregivers caring for critically ill children hospitalized in a pediatric intensive care unit: a qualitative systematic review protocol. Hernioplasty using low-cost mesh compared to surgical mesh in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review protocol. Impact of clinical supervision of health professionals on organizational outcomes: a mixed methods systematic review protocol.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1