Conectar
Pediatric otolaryngology surgeries are crucial interventions requiring careful consideration of surgical methods to optimize outcomes. The choice between open and minimally invasive surgical approaches in this context warrants thorough investigation. While both methods aim to address ear, nose, and throat conditions in children, a comparative study assessing their impact on crucial factors such as intraoperative parameters, wound healing, complications, and postoperative pain is essential. This study aims to compare the effects of open and minimally invasive surgical methods on wound healing and infection in pediatric otolaryngology surgery, and provide a scientific basis for the selection of surgical methods. Two groups of patients were selected, with 90 people in each group. One group received open surgery and the other received minimally invasive surgery. Recording the intraoperative time, anesthesia time, and intraoperative blood loss; the number of days required for wound healing; the occurrence of wound-related complications; the comparison of pain on postoperative Days 1, 3, and 7; and the factors influencing postoperative wound healing were analyzed. In the minimally invasive surgery group, the intraoperative time was shorter, the anesthesia time was relatively reduced, and the amount of bleeding was significantly reduced. Wounds also take fewer days to heal and have lower rates of wound-related complications. When comparing the pain on 1, 3, and 7 days after surgery, the minimally invasive surgery group had relatively mild pain. Analysis of postoperative wound healing factors showed that minimally invasive surgical methods have a positive impact on healing. In pediatric otolaryngology surgery, minimally invasive surgery performs better than open surgery in terms of intraoperative operation time, anesthesia time, blood loss, wound healing time, complication rate, and postoperative pain. Therefore, minimally invasive surgery may be a safer and more effective surgical method.
A meta-analysis study was used to assess whether not placing a drain after thyroidectomy reduces postoperative wound complications. A critical review of the comprehensive literature up to May 2023 was conducted using four databases: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the web of science. Fourteen interrelated studies were reviewed after passing the inclusion and exclusion criteria established by the study and assessing the quality of the literature.95% confidence intervals (Cl) and odds ratios (OR) were calculated using fixed effects models. The data were meta-analysed using RevMan 5.3 software. The results showed that the use of drains during thyroid surgery did not have a favourable impact on patients. Intraoperative placement of drains did not reduce postoperative wound haematoma formation in patients, (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.54, 1.36 p = 0.52). However, the incidence of postoperative wound infection was significantly higher in patients with drains used in intraoperative thyroid surgery, (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.10, 0.45 p < 0.0001). As the sample size of the randomised controlled study used for this meta-analysis was limited, it is important to approach the findings with caution when interpreting the results.Conducting additional high-quality research with larger sample sizes is crucial in order to further confirm these results and reduce the likelihood of duplication.
FreshRSS 