声门前指挥棒板和下颌骨牵引对罗宾序列婴儿的效果比较。

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q1 SURGERY Plastic and reconstructive surgery Pub Date : 2024-11-19 DOI:10.1097/PRS.0000000000011887
Cory M Resnick, Jens de Gijsel, Snigdha Jindal, Mirja Quante, Christian Poets, Eliot Katz, Cornelia Wiechers
{"title":"声门前指挥棒板和下颌骨牵引对罗宾序列婴儿的效果比较。","authors":"Cory M Resnick, Jens de Gijsel, Snigdha Jindal, Mirja Quante, Christian Poets, Eliot Katz, Cornelia Wiechers","doi":"10.1097/PRS.0000000000011887","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mandibular distraction osteogenesis (MDO) and pre-epiglottic baton plates (PEBP) are both effective for early management of upper airway obstruction (UAO) in infants with Robin sequence (RS), but have not been directly compared. The purpose of this study was to compare early airway, feeding and growth outcomes between these treatments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a bicentric retrospective cohort study from 2015-2021 including infants with RS treated with MDO or PEBP before 6 months-of-age with pre- and post-treatment sleep studies and follow-up at least through age 1-year. The primary outcome was immediate post-intervention UAO, measured as obstructive apnea-hypopnea index (oAHI) or obstructive apnea index (oAI), as available. Latest follow-up sleep studies, feeding and growth characteristics were also assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>114 subjects were included: MDO, n=31 and PEBP, n=83. Pre-treatment UAO was similar between groups (p=0.61). PEBP was initiated at a younger age (median [IQR] 31 [14,53] vs. 41 [28,84] days-of-life, p<0.05). Significant reduction of oAHI/oAI was achieved in both groups, but greater with MDO (98%) compared to PEBP (94%, p<0.05). PEBP demonstrated better early feeding and growth outcomes compared to MDO, with fewer surgical feeding tubes (p<0.001) and more rapid early growth (p=0.038). When stratified by pre-intervention UAO, infants starting with moderate UAO experienced similar airway outcomes with both treatments (p=0.11), while those with severe UAO had greater resolution with MDO (p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both treatments effectively relieve moderate UAO in infants with RS, but MDO is more effective for infants with severe respiratory compromise.</p>","PeriodicalId":20128,"journal":{"name":"Plastic and reconstructive surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative effectiveness of pre-epiglottic baton plates and mandibular distraction in infants with Robin sequence.\",\"authors\":\"Cory M Resnick, Jens de Gijsel, Snigdha Jindal, Mirja Quante, Christian Poets, Eliot Katz, Cornelia Wiechers\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/PRS.0000000000011887\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mandibular distraction osteogenesis (MDO) and pre-epiglottic baton plates (PEBP) are both effective for early management of upper airway obstruction (UAO) in infants with Robin sequence (RS), but have not been directly compared. The purpose of this study was to compare early airway, feeding and growth outcomes between these treatments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a bicentric retrospective cohort study from 2015-2021 including infants with RS treated with MDO or PEBP before 6 months-of-age with pre- and post-treatment sleep studies and follow-up at least through age 1-year. The primary outcome was immediate post-intervention UAO, measured as obstructive apnea-hypopnea index (oAHI) or obstructive apnea index (oAI), as available. Latest follow-up sleep studies, feeding and growth characteristics were also assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>114 subjects were included: MDO, n=31 and PEBP, n=83. Pre-treatment UAO was similar between groups (p=0.61). PEBP was initiated at a younger age (median [IQR] 31 [14,53] vs. 41 [28,84] days-of-life, p<0.05). Significant reduction of oAHI/oAI was achieved in both groups, but greater with MDO (98%) compared to PEBP (94%, p<0.05). PEBP demonstrated better early feeding and growth outcomes compared to MDO, with fewer surgical feeding tubes (p<0.001) and more rapid early growth (p=0.038). When stratified by pre-intervention UAO, infants starting with moderate UAO experienced similar airway outcomes with both treatments (p=0.11), while those with severe UAO had greater resolution with MDO (p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both treatments effectively relieve moderate UAO in infants with RS, but MDO is more effective for infants with severe respiratory compromise.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20128,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Plastic and reconstructive surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Plastic and reconstructive surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000011887\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Plastic and reconstructive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000011887","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:下颌骨牵引成骨术(MDO)和声门前接骨板(PEBP)都是早期治疗罗宾序列(RS)婴儿上气道阻塞(UAO)的有效方法,但尚未进行过直接比较。本研究旨在比较这两种治疗方法的早期气道、喂养和生长结果:这是一项从 2015 年到 2021 年的双中心回顾性队列研究,研究对象包括 6 个月前接受 MDO 或 PEBP 治疗的 RS 婴儿,并进行了治疗前后的睡眠研究和至少到 1 岁的随访。主要结果是干预后即刻的 UAO,以阻塞性呼吸暂停-低通气指数(oAHI)或阻塞性呼吸暂停指数(oAI)衡量(如有)。此外,还对最新的后续睡眠研究、喂养和生长特征进行了评估:结果:共纳入 114 名受试者:结果:共纳入 114 名受试者:MDO(31 人)和 PEBP(83 人)。两组患者治疗前的UAO相似(P=0.61)。开始使用 PEBP 的年龄较小(中位数[IQR] 31 [14,53] vs. 41 [28,84] 天,p 结论:两种治疗方法都能有效缓解中度 UAO:两种治疗方法都能有效缓解 RS 婴儿的中度 UAO,但 MDO 对呼吸功能严重受损的婴儿更有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparative effectiveness of pre-epiglottic baton plates and mandibular distraction in infants with Robin sequence.

Background: Mandibular distraction osteogenesis (MDO) and pre-epiglottic baton plates (PEBP) are both effective for early management of upper airway obstruction (UAO) in infants with Robin sequence (RS), but have not been directly compared. The purpose of this study was to compare early airway, feeding and growth outcomes between these treatments.

Methods: This is a bicentric retrospective cohort study from 2015-2021 including infants with RS treated with MDO or PEBP before 6 months-of-age with pre- and post-treatment sleep studies and follow-up at least through age 1-year. The primary outcome was immediate post-intervention UAO, measured as obstructive apnea-hypopnea index (oAHI) or obstructive apnea index (oAI), as available. Latest follow-up sleep studies, feeding and growth characteristics were also assessed.

Results: 114 subjects were included: MDO, n=31 and PEBP, n=83. Pre-treatment UAO was similar between groups (p=0.61). PEBP was initiated at a younger age (median [IQR] 31 [14,53] vs. 41 [28,84] days-of-life, p<0.05). Significant reduction of oAHI/oAI was achieved in both groups, but greater with MDO (98%) compared to PEBP (94%, p<0.05). PEBP demonstrated better early feeding and growth outcomes compared to MDO, with fewer surgical feeding tubes (p<0.001) and more rapid early growth (p=0.038). When stratified by pre-intervention UAO, infants starting with moderate UAO experienced similar airway outcomes with both treatments (p=0.11), while those with severe UAO had greater resolution with MDO (p<0.001).

Conclusion: Both treatments effectively relieve moderate UAO in infants with RS, but MDO is more effective for infants with severe respiratory compromise.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
13.90%
发文量
1436
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: For more than 70 years Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery® has been the one consistently excellent reference for every specialist who uses plastic surgery techniques or works in conjunction with a plastic surgeon. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery® , the official journal of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, is a benefit of Society membership, and is also available on a subscription basis. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery® brings subscribers up-to-the-minute reports on the latest techniques and follow-up for all areas of plastic and reconstructive surgery, including breast reconstruction, experimental studies, maxillofacial reconstruction, hand and microsurgery, burn repair, cosmetic surgery, as well as news on medicolegal issues. The cosmetic section provides expanded coverage on new procedures and techniques and offers more cosmetic-specific content than any other journal. All subscribers enjoy full access to the Journal''s website, which features broadcast quality videos of reconstructive and cosmetic procedures, podcasts, comprehensive article archives dating to 1946, and additional benefits offered by the newly-redesigned website.
期刊最新文献
Spontaneous recovery of active shoulder external rotation in patients with brachial plexus birth injury. Comparative effectiveness of pre-epiglottic baton plates and mandibular distraction in infants with Robin sequence. Long-Term Surgical Outcomes of Intermediate Cleft Rhinoplasty. Predictors of Facial Synkinesis Severity. The Racial Representation of Cosmetic Minimally Invasive Procedure Patients and Physicians on Social Media.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1