Young Gyu Eun1, Dae Han Chung, Kee Hwan Kwon. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Sungkyunkwan University Samsung Changwon Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Changwon, South Korea.
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.
RCT Entities:
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.