A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

The Role of Trublue Laser in Cholesteatoma Surgery. | LitMetric

The Role of Trublue Laser in Cholesteatoma Surgery.

Otol Neurotol

Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Published: June 2024

Objective: The retrospective cohort study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of TruBlue laser application in cholesteatoma surgeries.

Methods: All cholesteatoma surgeries conducted from January 2018 to January 2022 in two tertiary referral hospitals in Hong Kong, with and without use of TruBlue laser, were included. Pure tone audiogram was done pre- and post-operatively to assess hearing. Disease extent was graded with ChOLE score and ChOLE staging. Residual disease was determined clinically, radiologically, or surgically with second look operation.

Results: One hundred twenty cholesteatoma cases were identified. There are 39.2% (n = 47) of the cholesteatoma surgeries that utilized TruBlue laser, while 60.8% (n = 73) did not. Overall follow-up duration was 21 ± 12.4 months, ranging from 2 to 47 months. Both groups were similar in demographics, pre-operative hearing and ChOLE staging. The length of stay was comparable in both groups (2 ± 2 days in nonlaser, 1 ± 1 day in laser, p = 0.31). There was no facial nerve injury related to surgery in both groups, and overall complication rates were similar (4.1% in nonlaser, 4.3% in laser, p = 0.97). The postoperative hearing was comparable with good hearing preservation in both groups. Residual cholesteatoma occurred in 17.8% (n = 13) in nonlaser group, and 21.3% (n = 10) in laser group, which was not statistically significant (p = 0.64). Seventy percent of the cholesteatoma residual in laser group occurred at area that TruBlue LASER cannot be applied.

Conclusion: TruBlue LASER was safe in cholesteatoma surgeries, though no added benefits were shown in reducing cholesteatoma residual rate. A larger controlled study is warranted to discern the true effect of TruBlue LASER.

Level Of Evidence: Level 3.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000004183DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

trublue laser
24
cholesteatoma surgeries
12
laser
10
cholesteatoma
9
chole staging
8
laser group
8
cholesteatoma residual
8
trublue
6
role trublue
4
laser cholesteatoma
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!