4.7 Article

Double probe intraoperative neuromonitoring with a standardized method in thyroid surgery

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 S140-S144

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.05.026

关键词

Thyroid surgery; Laryngeal nerve; Intraoperative neuromonitoring

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) of the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) and the vagus nerve (VN) with a standardized approach in thyroid surgery. Methods: Retrospective study with an experimental group with which IONM was used, both with the RLN that the VN, and a control one, each consisting of 300 total thyroidectomies. Each patient underwent a pre-and post-operative videolaryngoscopy. The number of RLNs identified and the number of transient and permanent RNL injuries for each group were assessed, and then compared with chi(2) tests. In the experimental group Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictability, Negative Predictability and Accuracy of IONM were evaluated, depending on the number of true positive results, false negatives, true negatives and false positives obtained by comparing the results of IONM with the post-operative videolaryngoscopies. Results: The results obtained for the experimental group vs. the control group were: RLNs identified 595 (99.1%) vs. 552 (92%) -P Value < 0.0001; Permanent RLNs injuries 4 (1.33%) vs. 5 (1.67%) -P Value 1; transient RLNs injuries 1 (0.33%) vs. 8 (2.67%) -P Value 0.044. The IONM system, for the RLN and VN showed respectively: Sensitivity 66.7% vs. 83.3%; specificity 97.6% vs. 99.5%; Positive Predictability 22.2% vs. 62.5%; Negative Predictability 99.6% vs. 99.3%; Accuracy 97.3% vs. 99.3%. Conclusions: Our study highlights that using IONM with a standardized method in thyroid surgery, improves the ability to identify the RLN and a reduction in the incidence rate of transient RLN injuries. (C) 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Surgical Associates Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据