办公室内窥镜鼻窦手术的安全性和可行性

S. Abrahamsson, T. Kolari, J. Numminen, H. Irjala
{"title":"办公室内窥镜鼻窦手术的安全性和可行性","authors":"S. Abrahamsson, T. Kolari, J. Numminen, H. Irjala","doi":"10.4193/rhinol/23.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether office-based endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) is as safe as tradi- tional outpatient surgery and whether there are differences in the operation results, patient recovery data, or complication and revision surgery rates. Methods: The study involved 164 subjects and data was collected retrospectively from Seinäjoki Central Hospital patient records. The office-based group included 92 patients who had undergone ESS under local anaesthesia in an office-based setting between April 2014 and December 2017, and the outpatient group 72 patients who had done so in an outpatient setting between January 2010 and December 2014. Patients were divided into two groups based on presence (wNPs, n=57) or absence (sNPs, n=107) of nasal polyps. Results: We found statistically significant differences in intraoperative medication in terms of amounts of drugs administrated. Sick leave was on average 2.1 days longer in the outpatient sNPs group and 2.4 days longer in the outpatient wNPs group than in the respective office groups. There were no statistically significant differences between methods in terms of complications. Revision rates for sNPs were 5.6% and 13.9% for the office and outpatient groups, respectively, and for wNPs 4.8% and 19.4%, respectively. Conclusion: Office-based ESS with careful patient selection seems safe, effective, and well tolerated by patients. Office-based intervention may lead to shorter sick leave durations and can reduce the overall use of sedative drugs during the operation.","PeriodicalId":74737,"journal":{"name":"Rhinology online","volume":"19 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Safety and feasibility of endoscopic sinus surgery as an office-based procedure\",\"authors\":\"S. Abrahamsson, T. Kolari, J. Numminen, H. Irjala\",\"doi\":\"10.4193/rhinol/23.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether office-based endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) is as safe as tradi- tional outpatient surgery and whether there are differences in the operation results, patient recovery data, or complication and revision surgery rates. Methods: The study involved 164 subjects and data was collected retrospectively from Seinäjoki Central Hospital patient records. The office-based group included 92 patients who had undergone ESS under local anaesthesia in an office-based setting between April 2014 and December 2017, and the outpatient group 72 patients who had done so in an outpatient setting between January 2010 and December 2014. Patients were divided into two groups based on presence (wNPs, n=57) or absence (sNPs, n=107) of nasal polyps. Results: We found statistically significant differences in intraoperative medication in terms of amounts of drugs administrated. Sick leave was on average 2.1 days longer in the outpatient sNPs group and 2.4 days longer in the outpatient wNPs group than in the respective office groups. There were no statistically significant differences between methods in terms of complications. Revision rates for sNPs were 5.6% and 13.9% for the office and outpatient groups, respectively, and for wNPs 4.8% and 19.4%, respectively. Conclusion: Office-based ESS with careful patient selection seems safe, effective, and well tolerated by patients. Office-based intervention may lead to shorter sick leave durations and can reduce the overall use of sedative drugs during the operation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74737,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rhinology online\",\"volume\":\"19 12\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rhinology online\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4193/rhinol/23.004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rhinology online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4193/rhinol/23.004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究旨在评估诊室内窥镜鼻窦手术(ESS)是否与传统门诊手术一样安全,以及在手术效果、患者恢复数据或并发症和翻修手术率方面是否存在差异。研究方法:研究涉及 164 名受试者,数据从塞纳约基中心医院的病历中回顾性收集。诊室组包括2014年4月至2017年12月期间在诊室局部麻醉下接受ESS手术的92名患者,门诊组包括2010年1月至2014年12月期间在门诊接受ESS手术的72名患者。根据鼻息肉的存在(wNPs,n=57)或不存在(sNPs,n=107)将患者分为两组。结果:我们发现术中用药在用药量上有显著统计学差异。门诊 sNPs 组和门诊 wNPs 组的病假分别比办公室组平均多 2.1 天和 2.4 天。在并发症方面,不同方法之间没有明显的统计学差异。sNPs的翻修率在诊室组和门诊组分别为5.6%和13.9%,wNPs分别为4.8%和19.4%。结论:在谨慎选择患者的情况下,诊室ESS似乎是安全、有效的,而且患者的耐受性也很好。诊室干预可缩短病假时间,并可减少手术过程中镇静药物的总体使用量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Safety and feasibility of endoscopic sinus surgery as an office-based procedure
Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether office-based endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) is as safe as tradi- tional outpatient surgery and whether there are differences in the operation results, patient recovery data, or complication and revision surgery rates. Methods: The study involved 164 subjects and data was collected retrospectively from Seinäjoki Central Hospital patient records. The office-based group included 92 patients who had undergone ESS under local anaesthesia in an office-based setting between April 2014 and December 2017, and the outpatient group 72 patients who had done so in an outpatient setting between January 2010 and December 2014. Patients were divided into two groups based on presence (wNPs, n=57) or absence (sNPs, n=107) of nasal polyps. Results: We found statistically significant differences in intraoperative medication in terms of amounts of drugs administrated. Sick leave was on average 2.1 days longer in the outpatient sNPs group and 2.4 days longer in the outpatient wNPs group than in the respective office groups. There were no statistically significant differences between methods in terms of complications. Revision rates for sNPs were 5.6% and 13.9% for the office and outpatient groups, respectively, and for wNPs 4.8% and 19.4%, respectively. Conclusion: Office-based ESS with careful patient selection seems safe, effective, and well tolerated by patients. Office-based intervention may lead to shorter sick leave durations and can reduce the overall use of sedative drugs during the operation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
COVID-19 control protocol for rhinologic surgery Trends in dupilumab persistence among patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps Dupilumab as an emerging treatment for refractory allergic fungal rhinosinusitis: a case series and literature review Capturing qualitative olfactory dysfunction with PARPHAIT: the parosmia, phantosmia, and anosmia test Prevalence of smell and taste dysfunction in different clinical severity groups of COVID-19 patients
×
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