Loading…

Advantages of intraoral removal over submandibular gland resection for proximal submandibular stones

Objectives/Hypothesis: To compare surgical outcomes after intraoral removal of proximal submandibular stones versus traditional submandibular gland (SMG) resection. Study Design: A prospective randomized study. Methods: Forty‐four consecutive patients were diagnosed with proximal submandibular stone...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Laryngoscope 2010-11, Vol.120 (11), p.2189-2192
Main Authors: Eun, Young Gyu, Chung, Dae Han, Kwon, Kee Hwan
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1910-95dca9153232c9396b09556d0fb7a01abcbd81e9630301508b34d2fb2320e6383
cites
container_end_page 2192
container_issue 11
container_start_page 2189
container_title The Laryngoscope
container_volume 120
creator Eun, Young Gyu
Chung, Dae Han
Kwon, Kee Hwan
description Objectives/Hypothesis: To compare surgical outcomes after intraoral removal of proximal submandibular stones versus traditional submandibular gland (SMG) resection. Study Design: A prospective randomized study. Methods: Forty‐four consecutive patients were diagnosed with proximal submandibular stones in the hilum of the submandibular gland by ultrasonography or computed tomography. All of the patients were randomized to undergo removal of the stones either by an intraoral approach (IORS group, 22 patients) or through SMG resection (SMGR group, 22 patients). We then compared the surgical outcomes between these two groups. Results: Stones in the IORS group were significantly smaller than those in the SMGR group. There was no significant difference in the distance of the stones from the hilum between groups. The mean operation time in the IORS group was significantly shorter than that of the SMGR group. The mean hospital stay of the IORS group was also significantly shorter than that of the SMGR group, and IORS patients felt significantly less pain than did SMGR patients. No patient experienced any complication after surgery with the exception of a single patient who experienced transient and mild neck swelling. Conclusions: Intraoral removal of proximal submandibular stones has several advantages over SMG resection. Based on our results, we suggest that our intraoral removal method be selected as the primary procedure for the removal of proximal submandibular stones rather than SMG resection. Laryngoscope, 2010
doi_str_mv 10.1002/lary.21120
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>istex_wiley</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_wiley_primary_10_1002_lary_21120_LARY21120</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>ark_67375_WNG_SHBB0QK4_9</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1910-95dca9153232c9396b09556d0fb7a01abcbd81e9630301508b34d2fb2320e6383</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkF9PwjAUxRujiYi--An6BYa3Ld3WRyAKxkXjv6hPTbt2ZDpW0g6Eb28BY-LTPcn9nXtPDkKXBAYEgF41ym8HlBAKR6hHOCPJUAh-jHpxyZKc0_dTdBbCJwDJGIceMiOzVm2n5jZgV-G67bxyXjXY24Vbx-nW1uOw0gvVmlqv4gM8b6KOQLBlV7sWV87jpXebehH5_2joXGvDOTqpVBPsxe_so9eb65fJLCkepreTUZGURBBIBDelEjE1ZbQUTKQaBOepgUpnCojSpTY5sSJlwIBwyDUbGlrpiINNWc76iBzufteN3cqlj4n8VhKQu3Lkrhy5L0cWo6ePvYqe5OCpQ2c3fx7lv2SasYzLt_upfJ6Nx_B4N5SC_QAZD2sT</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Publisher</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Advantages of intraoral removal over submandibular gland resection for proximal submandibular stones</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read &amp; Publish Collection</source><creator>Eun, Young Gyu ; Chung, Dae Han ; Kwon, Kee Hwan</creator><creatorcontrib>Eun, Young Gyu ; Chung, Dae Han ; Kwon, Kee Hwan</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives/Hypothesis: To compare surgical outcomes after intraoral removal of proximal submandibular stones versus traditional submandibular gland (SMG) resection. Study Design: A prospective randomized study. Methods: Forty‐four consecutive patients were diagnosed with proximal submandibular stones in the hilum of the submandibular gland by ultrasonography or computed tomography. All of the patients were randomized to undergo removal of the stones either by an intraoral approach (IORS group, 22 patients) or through SMG resection (SMGR group, 22 patients). We then compared the surgical outcomes between these two groups. Results: Stones in the IORS group were significantly smaller than those in the SMGR group. There was no significant difference in the distance of the stones from the hilum between groups. The mean operation time in the IORS group was significantly shorter than that of the SMGR group. The mean hospital stay of the IORS group was also significantly shorter than that of the SMGR group, and IORS patients felt significantly less pain than did SMGR patients. No patient experienced any complication after surgery with the exception of a single patient who experienced transient and mild neck swelling. Conclusions: Intraoral removal of proximal submandibular stones has several advantages over SMG resection. Based on our results, we suggest that our intraoral removal method be selected as the primary procedure for the removal of proximal submandibular stones rather than SMG resection. Laryngoscope, 2010</description><identifier>ISSN: 0023-852X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1531-4995</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/lary.21120</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><subject>intraoral removal ; Level of Evidence: 1b ; stone ; Submandibular gland ; Submandibular gland, stone, intraoral removal</subject><ispartof>The Laryngoscope, 2010-11, Vol.120 (11), p.2189-2192</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2010 The American Laryngological, Rhinological, and Otological Society, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1910-95dca9153232c9396b09556d0fb7a01abcbd81e9630301508b34d2fb2320e6383</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Eun, Young Gyu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chung, Dae Han</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kwon, Kee Hwan</creatorcontrib><title>Advantages of intraoral removal over submandibular gland resection for proximal submandibular stones</title><title>The Laryngoscope</title><addtitle>The Laryngoscope</addtitle><description>Objectives/Hypothesis: To compare surgical outcomes after intraoral removal of proximal submandibular stones versus traditional submandibular gland (SMG) resection. Study Design: A prospective randomized study. Methods: Forty‐four consecutive patients were diagnosed with proximal submandibular stones in the hilum of the submandibular gland by ultrasonography or computed tomography. All of the patients were randomized to undergo removal of the stones either by an intraoral approach (IORS group, 22 patients) or through SMG resection (SMGR group, 22 patients). We then compared the surgical outcomes between these two groups. Results: Stones in the IORS group were significantly smaller than those in the SMGR group. There was no significant difference in the distance of the stones from the hilum between groups. The mean operation time in the IORS group was significantly shorter than that of the SMGR group. The mean hospital stay of the IORS group was also significantly shorter than that of the SMGR group, and IORS patients felt significantly less pain than did SMGR patients. No patient experienced any complication after surgery with the exception of a single patient who experienced transient and mild neck swelling. Conclusions: Intraoral removal of proximal submandibular stones has several advantages over SMG resection. Based on our results, we suggest that our intraoral removal method be selected as the primary procedure for the removal of proximal submandibular stones rather than SMG resection. Laryngoscope, 2010</description><subject>intraoral removal</subject><subject>Level of Evidence: 1b</subject><subject>stone</subject><subject>Submandibular gland</subject><subject>Submandibular gland, stone, intraoral removal</subject><issn>0023-852X</issn><issn>1531-4995</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpVkF9PwjAUxRujiYi--An6BYa3Ld3WRyAKxkXjv6hPTbt2ZDpW0g6Eb28BY-LTPcn9nXtPDkKXBAYEgF41ym8HlBAKR6hHOCPJUAh-jHpxyZKc0_dTdBbCJwDJGIceMiOzVm2n5jZgV-G67bxyXjXY24Vbx-nW1uOw0gvVmlqv4gM8b6KOQLBlV7sWV87jpXebehH5_2joXGvDOTqpVBPsxe_so9eb65fJLCkepreTUZGURBBIBDelEjE1ZbQUTKQaBOepgUpnCojSpTY5sSJlwIBwyDUbGlrpiINNWc76iBzufteN3cqlj4n8VhKQu3Lkrhy5L0cWo6ePvYqe5OCpQ2c3fx7lv2SasYzLt_upfJ6Nx_B4N5SC_QAZD2sT</recordid><startdate>201011</startdate><enddate>201011</enddate><creator>Eun, Young Gyu</creator><creator>Chung, Dae Han</creator><creator>Kwon, Kee Hwan</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</general><scope>BSCLL</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201011</creationdate><title>Advantages of intraoral removal over submandibular gland resection for proximal submandibular stones</title><author>Eun, Young Gyu ; Chung, Dae Han ; Kwon, Kee Hwan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1910-95dca9153232c9396b09556d0fb7a01abcbd81e9630301508b34d2fb2320e6383</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>intraoral removal</topic><topic>Level of Evidence: 1b</topic><topic>stone</topic><topic>Submandibular gland</topic><topic>Submandibular gland, stone, intraoral removal</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Eun, Young Gyu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chung, Dae Han</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kwon, Kee Hwan</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><jtitle>The Laryngoscope</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Eun, Young Gyu</au><au>Chung, Dae Han</au><au>Kwon, Kee Hwan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Advantages of intraoral removal over submandibular gland resection for proximal submandibular stones</atitle><jtitle>The Laryngoscope</jtitle><addtitle>The Laryngoscope</addtitle><date>2010-11</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>120</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>2189</spage><epage>2192</epage><pages>2189-2192</pages><issn>0023-852X</issn><eissn>1531-4995</eissn><abstract>Objectives/Hypothesis: To compare surgical outcomes after intraoral removal of proximal submandibular stones versus traditional submandibular gland (SMG) resection. Study Design: A prospective randomized study. Methods: Forty‐four consecutive patients were diagnosed with proximal submandibular stones in the hilum of the submandibular gland by ultrasonography or computed tomography. All of the patients were randomized to undergo removal of the stones either by an intraoral approach (IORS group, 22 patients) or through SMG resection (SMGR group, 22 patients). We then compared the surgical outcomes between these two groups. Results: Stones in the IORS group were significantly smaller than those in the SMGR group. There was no significant difference in the distance of the stones from the hilum between groups. The mean operation time in the IORS group was significantly shorter than that of the SMGR group. The mean hospital stay of the IORS group was also significantly shorter than that of the SMGR group, and IORS patients felt significantly less pain than did SMGR patients. No patient experienced any complication after surgery with the exception of a single patient who experienced transient and mild neck swelling. Conclusions: Intraoral removal of proximal submandibular stones has several advantages over SMG resection. Based on our results, we suggest that our intraoral removal method be selected as the primary procedure for the removal of proximal submandibular stones rather than SMG resection. Laryngoscope, 2010</abstract><cop>Hoboken</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</pub><doi>10.1002/lary.21120</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0023-852X
ispartof The Laryngoscope, 2010-11, Vol.120 (11), p.2189-2192
issn 0023-852X
1531-4995
language eng
recordid cdi_wiley_primary_10_1002_lary_21120_LARY21120
source Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection
subjects intraoral removal
Level of Evidence: 1b
stone
Submandibular gland
Submandibular gland, stone, intraoral removal
title Advantages of intraoral removal over submandibular gland resection for proximal submandibular stones
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T13%3A17%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-istex_wiley&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Advantages%20of%20intraoral%20removal%20over%20submandibular%20gland%20resection%20for%20proximal%20submandibular%20stones&rft.jtitle=The%20Laryngoscope&rft.au=Eun,%20Young%20Gyu&rft.date=2010-11&rft.volume=120&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=2189&rft.epage=2192&rft.pages=2189-2192&rft.issn=0023-852X&rft.eissn=1531-4995&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/lary.21120&rft_dat=%3Cistex_wiley%3Eark_67375_WNG_SHBB0QK4_9%3C/istex_wiley%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1910-95dca9153232c9396b09556d0fb7a01abcbd81e9630301508b34d2fb2320e6383%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true