Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros











Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Int. arch. otorhinolaryngol. (Impr.) ; 26(1): 85-90, Jan.-Mar. 2022. tab, graf
Artículo en Inglés | LILACS-Express | LILACS | ID: biblio-1364920

RESUMEN

Abstract Introduction The endoscopic access to lesions in the anterolateral wall of the maxillary sinus is a challenging issue; therefore, the evaluation of access should be performed. Objective To assess the accessibility of three endoscopic ipsilateral endonasal corridors. Methods Three corridors were created in each of the 30 maxillary sinuses from 19 head cadavers. Accessing the anterolateral wall of the maxillary sinus was documented with a straight stereotactic navigator probe at the level of the nasal floor and of the axilla of the inferior turbinate. Results At level of the nasal floor, the prelacrimal approach, the modified endoscopic Denker approach, and the endoscopic Denker approach allowed mean radial access to the anterolateral maxillary sinus wall of 42.6 ± 7.3 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 39.9-45.3), 56.0 ± 6.1 (95%CI: 53.7-58.3), and 60.1 ± 6.2 (95%CI: 57.8-62.4), respectively. Furthermore, these approaches provided more lateral access to the maxillary sinus at the level of the axilla of the inferior turbinate, with mean radial access of 45.8 ± 6.9 (95%CI: 43.3-48.4) for the prelacrimal approach, 59.8 ± 4.7 (95% CI:58.1--61.6) for the modified endoscopic Denker approach, and 63.6 ± 5.5 (95%CI: 61.6-65.7) for the endoscopic Denker approach. The mean radial access in each corridor, either at the level of the nasal floor or the axilla of the inferior turbinate, showed a statistically significant difference in all comparison approaches (p < 0.05). Conclusions The prelacrimal approach provided a narrow radial access, which allows access to anteromedial lesions of the maxillary sinus, whereas the modified endoscopic Denker and the endoscopic Denker approaches provided more lateral radial access and improved operational feasibility on far anterolateral maxillary sinus lesions.

2.
Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol ; 26(1): e085-e090, 2022 Jan.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35096163

RESUMEN

Introduction The endoscopic access to lesions in the anterolateral wall of the maxillary sinus is a challenging issue; therefore, the evaluation of access should be performed. Objective To assess the accessibility of three endoscopic ipsilateral endonasal corridors. Methods Three corridors were created in each of the 30 maxillary sinuses from 19 head cadavers. Accessing the anterolateral wall of the maxillary sinus was documented with a straight stereotactic navigator probe at the level of the nasal floor and of the axilla of the inferior turbinate. Results At level of the nasal floor, the prelacrimal approach, the modified endoscopic Denker approach, and the endoscopic Denker approach allowed mean radial access to the anterolateral maxillary sinus wall of 42.6 ± 7.3 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 39.9-45.3), 56.0 ± 6.1 (95%CI: 53.7-58.3), and 60.1 ± 6.2 (95%CI: 57.8-62.4), respectively. Furthermore, these approaches provided more lateral access to the maxillary sinus at the level of the axilla of the inferior turbinate, with mean radial access of 45.8 ± 6.9 (95%CI: 43.3-48.4) for the prelacrimal approach, 59.8 ± 4.7 (95% CI:58.1-61.6) for the modified endoscopic Denker approach, and 63.6 ± 5.5 (95%CI: 61.6-65.7) for the endoscopic Denker approach. The mean radial access in each corridor, either at the level of the nasal floor or the axilla of the inferior turbinate, showed a statistically significant difference in all comparison approaches ( p < 0.05). Conclusions The prelacrimal approach provided a narrow radial access, which allows access to anteromedial lesions of the maxillary sinus, whereas the modified endoscopic Denker and the endoscopic Denker approaches provided more lateral radial access and improved operational feasibility on far anterolateral maxillary sinus lesions.

3.
Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol ; 25(4): e616-e620, 2021 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34777594

RESUMEN

Introduction Preventing droplet dispersal is an important issue for decreasing the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) transmission rate; numerous personal protective equipment (PPE) devices have been recently developed for this. Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of a novel PPE device to prevent droplet spread during nasal endoscopic and fiber optic laryngoscopic examination and postuse equipment cleaning technique. Methods The "endoscopy salon" was created with a hooded salon hair dryer, plastic sheath, and silicone nipple. Comparison fluorescence dye dispersal from simulating forceful coughing with and without using the "endoscopy salon" was conducted to assess the droplet spread control. The effects of heat produced in the "endoscopy salon" and disinfection cleaning were also evaluated. Results Fluorescent dye droplet spread from a mannequin's mouth without using the "endoscopy salon" to care providers' clothes and the floor surrounding mannequin, whereas no dye droplets spread out when using the "endoscopy salon". The maximal temperature observed in the hair dryer was 56.3°C. During the cleaning process, when a plastic bag was attached to the hair dryer's hood to create a closed system, the temperature increased to 79.8 ± 3.1 °C. These temperatures eliminated four test organism cultures during equipment disinfection. Conclusion This novel "endoscopy salon" device prevented respiratory droplet spread and eliminated infectious organisms during postuse equipment cleaning.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA