回到瓶中:腭成形术术后预防方案系统性变更前后的结果比较。

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q2 Dentistry Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal Pub Date : 2024-12-18 DOI:10.1177/10556656241297813
Margaret M Lico, Jesus Rodrigo Diaz-Siso, Sydney Gayner, Leya Groysman, Matteo Laspro, Allison L Diaz, Amanda L Young, Liliana Camison-Bravo, Roberto L Flores
{"title":"回到瓶中:腭成形术术后预防方案系统性变更前后的结果比较。","authors":"Margaret M Lico, Jesus Rodrigo Diaz-Siso, Sydney Gayner, Leya Groysman, Matteo Laspro, Allison L Diaz, Amanda L Young, Liliana Camison-Bravo, Roberto L Flores","doi":"10.1177/10556656241297813","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Main objective: </strong>To analyze postoperative palatoplasty outcomes before and after systemic protocol changes to preferred bottle and arm immobilizer use after surgery.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective, cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Urban, academic, tertiary medical center in New York City, NY.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Eighty-four patients who underwent primary palatoplasty and met inclusion criteria during 1 of 2 treatment periods, 2016 to 2017 (group A, <i>n </i>= 45) and 2019 to 2020 (group B, <i>n </i>= 39).</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Protocols were amended over the 2018 calendar year to allow for utilization of the baby's preferred bottle (vs alternative feeding methods) and hand socks (vs arm immobilizers) in the immediate postoperative period. Data was extrapolated from electronic medical records to compare surgical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Postoperative wound complications (fistula and dehiscence) that did not resolve within 1 month, length of stay (hours), and 30-day re-admission. Nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests and Fisher's Exact test were utilized for statistical analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no statistically significant differences between sex, age at surgery, Veau classification, or hard and soft palate surgical repair technique. Group A had a wound complication rate of 8.7% (n = 4) versus a 2.6% rate (n = 1) for group B. No patients were re-admitted to the hospital from either group. There were no statistically significant differences between groups regarding length of stay (<i>P</i> = .528) or wound complication (<i>P</i> = .366).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings from this study suggest relaxing postoperative protocols following palatoplasty to allow immediate bottle feedings and unrestricted arm use may be safe without compromise to surgical outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":49220,"journal":{"name":"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal","volume":" ","pages":"10556656241297813"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Back to the Bottle: Comparison of Palatoplasty Outcomes Before and After Systematic Changes to Postoperative Precaution Protocols.\",\"authors\":\"Margaret M Lico, Jesus Rodrigo Diaz-Siso, Sydney Gayner, Leya Groysman, Matteo Laspro, Allison L Diaz, Amanda L Young, Liliana Camison-Bravo, Roberto L Flores\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10556656241297813\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Main objective: </strong>To analyze postoperative palatoplasty outcomes before and after systemic protocol changes to preferred bottle and arm immobilizer use after surgery.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective, cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Urban, academic, tertiary medical center in New York City, NY.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Eighty-four patients who underwent primary palatoplasty and met inclusion criteria during 1 of 2 treatment periods, 2016 to 2017 (group A, <i>n </i>= 45) and 2019 to 2020 (group B, <i>n </i>= 39).</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Protocols were amended over the 2018 calendar year to allow for utilization of the baby's preferred bottle (vs alternative feeding methods) and hand socks (vs arm immobilizers) in the immediate postoperative period. Data was extrapolated from electronic medical records to compare surgical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Postoperative wound complications (fistula and dehiscence) that did not resolve within 1 month, length of stay (hours), and 30-day re-admission. Nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests and Fisher's Exact test were utilized for statistical analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no statistically significant differences between sex, age at surgery, Veau classification, or hard and soft palate surgical repair technique. Group A had a wound complication rate of 8.7% (n = 4) versus a 2.6% rate (n = 1) for group B. No patients were re-admitted to the hospital from either group. There were no statistically significant differences between groups regarding length of stay (<i>P</i> = .528) or wound complication (<i>P</i> = .366).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings from this study suggest relaxing postoperative protocols following palatoplasty to allow immediate bottle feedings and unrestricted arm use may be safe without compromise to surgical outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49220,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"10556656241297813\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656241297813\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656241297813","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

主要目的:分析术后腭成形术前后的系统方案改变的首选瓶和臂固定器的使用。设计:回顾性队列研究。地点:纽约市区,学术,三级医疗中心。参与者:在2016年至2017年(A组,n = 45)和2019年至2020年(B组,n = 39) 2个治疗期中的1个治疗期间接受初级腭成形术并符合纳入标准的84例患者。干预措施:2018年修订了方案,允许在术后立即使用婴儿喜欢的奶瓶(相对于其他喂养方法)和手袜(相对于手臂固定器)。数据是从电子病历中推断出来的,以比较手术结果。主要观察指标:术后1个月内未解决的伤口并发症(瘘管和裂开)、住院时间(小时)、30天再入院。采用非参数Mann-Whitney U检验和Fisher’s Exact检验进行统计分析。结果:性别、手术年龄、Veau分型、软硬腭手术修复技术差异无统计学意义。A组的伤口并发症发生率为8.7% (n = 4),而b组为2.6% (n = 1)。两组均无患者再次入院。两组间住院时间(P = .528)和伤口并发症(P = .366)差异无统计学意义。结论:本研究的结果表明,在腭成形术后放松术后方案,允许立即喂奶和不受限制的手臂使用可能是安全的,而不会影响手术结果。
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
Back to the Bottle: Comparison of Palatoplasty Outcomes Before and After Systematic Changes to Postoperative Precaution Protocols.

Main objective: To analyze postoperative palatoplasty outcomes before and after systemic protocol changes to preferred bottle and arm immobilizer use after surgery.

Design: Retrospective, cohort study.

Setting: Urban, academic, tertiary medical center in New York City, NY.

Participants: Eighty-four patients who underwent primary palatoplasty and met inclusion criteria during 1 of 2 treatment periods, 2016 to 2017 (group A, n = 45) and 2019 to 2020 (group B, n = 39).

Interventions: Protocols were amended over the 2018 calendar year to allow for utilization of the baby's preferred bottle (vs alternative feeding methods) and hand socks (vs arm immobilizers) in the immediate postoperative period. Data was extrapolated from electronic medical records to compare surgical outcomes.

Main outcome measures: Postoperative wound complications (fistula and dehiscence) that did not resolve within 1 month, length of stay (hours), and 30-day re-admission. Nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests and Fisher's Exact test were utilized for statistical analysis.

Results: There were no statistically significant differences between sex, age at surgery, Veau classification, or hard and soft palate surgical repair technique. Group A had a wound complication rate of 8.7% (n = 4) versus a 2.6% rate (n = 1) for group B. No patients were re-admitted to the hospital from either group. There were no statistically significant differences between groups regarding length of stay (P = .528) or wound complication (P = .366).

Conclusions: The findings from this study suggest relaxing postoperative protocols following palatoplasty to allow immediate bottle feedings and unrestricted arm use may be safe without compromise to surgical outcomes.

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
Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal
Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-SURGERY
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
36.40%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal (CPCJ) is the premiere peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, international journal dedicated to current research on etiology, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in all areas pertaining to craniofacial anomalies. CPCJ reports on basic science and clinical research aimed at better elucidating the pathogenesis, pathology, and optimal methods of treatment of cleft and craniofacial anomalies. The journal strives to foster communication and cooperation among professionals from all specialties.
期刊最新文献
Addressing Cleft Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries Beyond Cleft Lip and Palate with Improvement of Otolaryngology, Audiology, and Speech Services. Dental Arch Relationship Outcomes of 5-Year-Olds Born With Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Following the Centralization of Cleft Services. ERF-Related Craniosynostosis in a Patient With Hypochondroplasia: A Case Report. Evaluation of Family-Centered Care by Parents and Nurses of Children With Congenital Microtia. The Use of Fixed and Removable Bite Blocks in Bilateral Buccinator Flap Surgery for Velopharyngeal Insufficiency.
×
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