喉罩麻醉、直喉镜和鳄鱼钳用于颈食管硬币摘除术:与传统方法的比较

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
Hemali P Shah, Craig Cameron Brawley, Lauren Gabra, John Maddalozzo, Sarah Maurrasse, Douglas Johnston
{"title":"喉罩麻醉、直喉镜和鳄鱼钳用于颈食管硬币摘除术:与传统方法的比较","authors":"Hemali P Shah, Craig Cameron Brawley, Lauren Gabra, John Maddalozzo, Sarah Maurrasse, Douglas Johnston","doi":"10.1177/00034894251318161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective(s): </strong>Coins are the most frequently ingested foreign bodies by children. While rigid esophagoscopy with concomitant intubation is frequently used for removal, it has the potential for serious complications. We aimed to assess and compare the safety, efficacy, and efficiency of two different techniques for pediatric cervical esophageal coin removal.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective chart review identified patients who underwent esophageal coin removal from January 2017-August 2023 at one of two tertiary academic centers: Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital and Yale-New Haven Hospital. Patients with foreign bodies other than coins were excluded. Patients underwent one of two approaches for cervical esophageal coin removal depending on surgeon preference: (1) induction of general anesthesia, intubation, rigid esophagoscopy, and coin extraction with optical forceps (esophagoscope group) or (2) mask ventilation, insertion of a straight laryngoscope blade into the esophagus orifice, and coin extraction with alligator forceps (straight laryngoscope group). Primary outcomes were successful removal of the esophageal coin, regarded a marker of efficacy, as well as operative and anesthesia times, which were regarded as measures of efficiency. Secondary outcomes were postoperative complications, regarded as markers of safety.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 108 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 23 (21.3%) were in the straight laryngoscope group and 85 (78.7%) in the esophagoscope group. Mean operative time was significantly shorter for the straight laryngoscope group compared to the esophagoscope group (2.8 ± 1.5 minutes vs 13.8 ± 17.2 minutes, respectively, <i>p</i> < .0001). Mean anesthesia time was significantly shorter for the straight laryngoscope group compared to the esophagoscope group (24.2 ± 6.4 minutes vs 44.7 ±1 6.2 minutes, respectively, <i>p</i> < .0001). There were no intra- or post-operative complications in the straight laryngoscope group and two minor complications in the esophagoscope group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Esophagoscopy using a straight laryngoscope blade under mask anesthesia can represent a safe and efficient alternative for impacted esophageal coin removal.</p>","PeriodicalId":50975,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Otology Rhinology and Laryngology","volume":" ","pages":"414-419"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mask Anesthesia, Straight Laryngoscope, and Alligator Forceps for Cervical Esophageal Coin Removal: A Comparison with Traditional Methods.\",\"authors\":\"Hemali P Shah, Craig Cameron Brawley, Lauren Gabra, John Maddalozzo, Sarah Maurrasse, Douglas Johnston\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00034894251318161\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective(s): </strong>Coins are the most frequently ingested foreign bodies by children. While rigid esophagoscopy with concomitant intubation is frequently used for removal, it has the potential for serious complications. We aimed to assess and compare the safety, efficacy, and efficiency of two different techniques for pediatric cervical esophageal coin removal.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective chart review identified patients who underwent esophageal coin removal from January 2017-August 2023 at one of two tertiary academic centers: Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital and Yale-New Haven Hospital. Patients with foreign bodies other than coins were excluded. Patients underwent one of two approaches for cervical esophageal coin removal depending on surgeon preference: (1) induction of general anesthesia, intubation, rigid esophagoscopy, and coin extraction with optical forceps (esophagoscope group) or (2) mask ventilation, insertion of a straight laryngoscope blade into the esophagus orifice, and coin extraction with alligator forceps (straight laryngoscope group). Primary outcomes were successful removal of the esophageal coin, regarded a marker of efficacy, as well as operative and anesthesia times, which were regarded as measures of efficiency. Secondary outcomes were postoperative complications, regarded as markers of safety.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 108 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 23 (21.3%) were in the straight laryngoscope group and 85 (78.7%) in the esophagoscope group. Mean operative time was significantly shorter for the straight laryngoscope group compared to the esophagoscope group (2.8 ± 1.5 minutes vs 13.8 ± 17.2 minutes, respectively, <i>p</i> < .0001). Mean anesthesia time was significantly shorter for the straight laryngoscope group compared to the esophagoscope group (24.2 ± 6.4 minutes vs 44.7 ±1 6.2 minutes, respectively, <i>p</i> < .0001). There were no intra- or post-operative complications in the straight laryngoscope group and two minor complications in the esophagoscope group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Esophagoscopy using a straight laryngoscope blade under mask anesthesia can represent a safe and efficient alternative for impacted esophageal coin removal.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50975,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Otology Rhinology and Laryngology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"414-419\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Otology Rhinology and Laryngology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00034894251318161\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Otology Rhinology and Laryngology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00034894251318161","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:硬币是儿童最常摄入的异物。虽然刚性食管镜合并插管经常用于切除,但它有潜在的严重并发症。我们的目的是评估和比较两种不同的技术在儿童颈部食管硬币取出术中的安全性、有效性和效率。方法:回顾性图表分析了2017年1月至2023年8月在两个三级学术中心之一(Ann & Robert H. Lurie儿童医院和耶鲁-纽黑文医院)接受食管硬币取出术的患者。排除除硬币外的异物患者。根据术者的选择,患者可选择两种方法进行颈部食管硬币取出术:(1)全麻诱导、气管插管、硬食管镜检查、光学钳取出硬币(食管镜组)或(2)面罩通气、直喉镜刀片插入食管口,鳄鱼钳取出硬币(直喉镜组)。主要结果是成功取出食管硬币,这被视为疗效的标志,以及手术和麻醉时间,这被视为效率的衡量标准。次要结局是术后并发症,被认为是安全性的标志。结果:108例符合纳入标准的患者中,直喉镜组23例(21.3%),食管镜组85例(78.7%)。与食管镜组相比,直喉镜组的平均手术时间明显缩短(分别为2.8±1.5分钟和13.8±17.2分钟)。结论:面罩麻醉下使用直喉镜刀片进行食管镜检查是一种安全有效的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mask Anesthesia, Straight Laryngoscope, and Alligator Forceps for Cervical Esophageal Coin Removal: A Comparison with Traditional Methods.

Objective(s): Coins are the most frequently ingested foreign bodies by children. While rigid esophagoscopy with concomitant intubation is frequently used for removal, it has the potential for serious complications. We aimed to assess and compare the safety, efficacy, and efficiency of two different techniques for pediatric cervical esophageal coin removal.

Methods: Retrospective chart review identified patients who underwent esophageal coin removal from January 2017-August 2023 at one of two tertiary academic centers: Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital and Yale-New Haven Hospital. Patients with foreign bodies other than coins were excluded. Patients underwent one of two approaches for cervical esophageal coin removal depending on surgeon preference: (1) induction of general anesthesia, intubation, rigid esophagoscopy, and coin extraction with optical forceps (esophagoscope group) or (2) mask ventilation, insertion of a straight laryngoscope blade into the esophagus orifice, and coin extraction with alligator forceps (straight laryngoscope group). Primary outcomes were successful removal of the esophageal coin, regarded a marker of efficacy, as well as operative and anesthesia times, which were regarded as measures of efficiency. Secondary outcomes were postoperative complications, regarded as markers of safety.

Results: Of the 108 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 23 (21.3%) were in the straight laryngoscope group and 85 (78.7%) in the esophagoscope group. Mean operative time was significantly shorter for the straight laryngoscope group compared to the esophagoscope group (2.8 ± 1.5 minutes vs 13.8 ± 17.2 minutes, respectively, p < .0001). Mean anesthesia time was significantly shorter for the straight laryngoscope group compared to the esophagoscope group (24.2 ± 6.4 minutes vs 44.7 ±1 6.2 minutes, respectively, p < .0001). There were no intra- or post-operative complications in the straight laryngoscope group and two minor complications in the esophagoscope group.

Conclusions: Esophagoscopy using a straight laryngoscope blade under mask anesthesia can represent a safe and efficient alternative for impacted esophageal coin removal.

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
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
171
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology publishes original manuscripts of clinical and research importance in otolaryngology–head and neck medicine and surgery, otology, neurotology, bronchoesophagology, laryngology, rhinology, head and neck oncology and surgery, plastic and reconstructive surgery, pediatric otolaryngology, audiology, and speech pathology. In-depth studies (supplements), papers of historical interest, and reviews of computer software and applications in otolaryngology are also published, as well as imaging, pathology, and clinicopathology studies, book reviews, and letters to the editor. AOR is the official journal of the American Broncho-Esophagological Association.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信