改良米拉德技术与 Tennison-Randall 技术在单侧唇裂修复中的效果:比较试验

Khaled Salah Abdullateef, Mohamed A M Nagaty, Mohamed Fathy, Khaled Abdelmoneim Elmenawi, Abeer Aboalazayem, Mohamed H Abouelfadl
{"title":"改良米拉德技术与 Tennison-Randall 技术在单侧唇裂修复中的效果:比较试验","authors":"Khaled Salah Abdullateef, Mohamed A M Nagaty, Mohamed Fathy, Khaled Abdelmoneim Elmenawi, Abeer Aboalazayem, Mohamed H Abouelfadl","doi":"10.4103/ajps.ajps_99_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to use anthropometric measurements taken pre- and post-operation to evaluate quantitative assessment of modified Millard technique compared with Tennison-Randall technique in unilateral cleft lip (UCL) repair.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Prospective randomised controlled study recruited infants scheduled for UCL repair. Infants aged 2-6 months, either complete or incomplete deformity. A total of 68 patients were randomised in 1:1 ratio to undergo either modified Millard technique (Group I) or Tennison-Randall technique (Group II).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Group I had significantly longer operative time than Group II (85.7 ± 7.4 vs. 68.7 ± 8.8 min, respectively; P < 0.001). Group I has less post-operative wound infection, wound dehiscence and wound scarring than Group II, but Group II has less post-operative lip notch. In Group I, greater increases in post-operative horizontal lip length and vertical lip height were observed, compared to Group II, without statistically significant difference. Group I showed a greater reduction in nasal width and total nasal width than Group II, without statistically significance. Group II had a greater increase in philtral height. However, only post-operative Cupid's-bow width was significantly different between two groups (P = 0.041).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Overall results demonstrate no significant differences between modified Millard technique and Tennison-Randall technique.</p>","PeriodicalId":72123,"journal":{"name":"African journal of paediatric surgery : AJPS","volume":"1 1","pages":"12-17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10903732/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Outcomes of Modified Millard Technique Versus Tennison-Randall Technique in Unilateral Cleft Lip Repair: A Comparative Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Khaled Salah Abdullateef, Mohamed A M Nagaty, Mohamed Fathy, Khaled Abdelmoneim Elmenawi, Abeer Aboalazayem, Mohamed H Abouelfadl\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/ajps.ajps_99_22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to use anthropometric measurements taken pre- and post-operation to evaluate quantitative assessment of modified Millard technique compared with Tennison-Randall technique in unilateral cleft lip (UCL) repair.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Prospective randomised controlled study recruited infants scheduled for UCL repair. Infants aged 2-6 months, either complete or incomplete deformity. A total of 68 patients were randomised in 1:1 ratio to undergo either modified Millard technique (Group I) or Tennison-Randall technique (Group II).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Group I had significantly longer operative time than Group II (85.7 ± 7.4 vs. 68.7 ± 8.8 min, respectively; P < 0.001). Group I has less post-operative wound infection, wound dehiscence and wound scarring than Group II, but Group II has less post-operative lip notch. In Group I, greater increases in post-operative horizontal lip length and vertical lip height were observed, compared to Group II, without statistically significant difference. Group I showed a greater reduction in nasal width and total nasal width than Group II, without statistically significance. Group II had a greater increase in philtral height. However, only post-operative Cupid's-bow width was significantly different between two groups (P = 0.041).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Overall results demonstrate no significant differences between modified Millard technique and Tennison-Randall technique.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72123,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"African journal of paediatric surgery : AJPS\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"12-17\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10903732/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"African journal of paediatric surgery : AJPS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/ajps.ajps_99_22\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/2/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African journal of paediatric surgery : AJPS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ajps.ajps_99_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究旨在使用手术前后的人体测量数据,对单侧唇裂(UCL)修复术中的改良米拉德技术与滕尼斯-兰德尔技术进行定量评估比较:前瞻性随机对照研究招募了计划进行 UCL 修复术的婴儿。婴儿年龄为 2-6 个月,完全或不完全畸形。共有 68 名患者按 1:1 的比例随机分配,分别接受改良 Millard 技术(I 组)或 Tennison-Randall 技术(II 组):结果:第一组的手术时间明显长于第二组(分别为 85.7 ± 7.4 分钟对 68.7 ± 8.8 分钟;P < 0.001)。I 组术后伤口感染、伤口裂开和伤口瘢痕的程度低于 II 组,但 II 组术后唇部切迹的程度低于 I 组。与第二组相比,第一组术后嘴唇水平长度和垂直高度增加较多,但无统计学差异。与第二组相比,第一组鼻翼宽度和鼻翼总宽度的减少幅度更大,但无统计学意义。第二组的蝶骨高度增加较多。然而,只有术后丘比特弓宽度在两组之间有显著差异(P = 0.041):总体结果表明,改良米拉德技术与 Tennison-Randall 技术之间没有明显差异。
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
The Outcomes of Modified Millard Technique Versus Tennison-Randall Technique in Unilateral Cleft Lip Repair: A Comparative Trial.

Background: This study aimed to use anthropometric measurements taken pre- and post-operation to evaluate quantitative assessment of modified Millard technique compared with Tennison-Randall technique in unilateral cleft lip (UCL) repair.

Materials and methods: Prospective randomised controlled study recruited infants scheduled for UCL repair. Infants aged 2-6 months, either complete or incomplete deformity. A total of 68 patients were randomised in 1:1 ratio to undergo either modified Millard technique (Group I) or Tennison-Randall technique (Group II).

Results: Group I had significantly longer operative time than Group II (85.7 ± 7.4 vs. 68.7 ± 8.8 min, respectively; P < 0.001). Group I has less post-operative wound infection, wound dehiscence and wound scarring than Group II, but Group II has less post-operative lip notch. In Group I, greater increases in post-operative horizontal lip length and vertical lip height were observed, compared to Group II, without statistically significant difference. Group I showed a greater reduction in nasal width and total nasal width than Group II, without statistically significance. Group II had a greater increase in philtral height. However, only post-operative Cupid's-bow width was significantly different between two groups (P = 0.041).

Conclusion: Overall results demonstrate no significant differences between modified Millard technique and Tennison-Randall technique.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pre-operative Serum Albumin Predicts Native Liver Survival in Biliary Atresia. Delayed Complete Colonic Stricture after Posterior Sagittal Anorectoplasty: Iatrogenic or Inflammatory? Effect of Pre-operative Parenteral Testosterone on Penile Dimensions and Vascularity in Proximal Hypospadias: A Prospective Observational Study. Post-operative Pain Control: A Comparison between Bupivacaine and Tramadol Local Wound Infiltration in Children Undergoing Herniotomy and Orchidopexy. Wound Healing and Cosmetic Outcomes in Neonatal Circumcision Using Three Different Techniques.
×
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