儿童咽瓣手术后的效果:有衬里与无衬里皮瓣的比较。

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-04 DOI:10.1177/10556656231172642
Colin Fuller, J Reed Gardner, Olivia Speed, Ashlen Thomason, Isabella Zaniletti, Lisa Buckmiller, Adam Johnson, Larry Hartzell
{"title":"儿童咽瓣手术后的效果:有衬里与无衬里皮瓣的比较。","authors":"Colin Fuller, J Reed Gardner, Olivia Speed, Ashlen Thomason, Isabella Zaniletti, Lisa Buckmiller, Adam Johnson, Larry Hartzell","doi":"10.1177/10556656231172642","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The addition of a uvular flap (PFU) was hypothesized to improve outcomes over standard pharyngeal flap (PF) for correction of velopharyngeal dysfunction. We report differences in outcomes of PF vs PFU at our institution.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Tertiary children's hospital.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Children who underwent PF or PFU with the three highest-volume surgeons at our institution in 2004-2017.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures: </strong>We examined differences in complications between groups, frequency and type of revision surgery, and speech-related measures including nasometry, pressure-flow testing (PFT) and perceptual speech analysis (PSA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>160 patients were included, 41 PF and 119 PFU (including 18 with Hogan technique). Patients undergoing PFU were older (7.6 yr vs 6.0 yr; p  =  0.037) and more likely to have cleft palate (63/119 vs 14/41; p  =  0.047). There was no significant difference in complications. With PFU, a decrease in airspace contracting revision surgeries was noted, (4/119 vs 8/41; p  =  0.002) which drove a reduction in revision surgery of all types (7/119 vs 13/41; p  =  0.033). However, patients that did undergo revision surgery after PFU underwent more revision procedures (p  =  0.032). PSA scores were found to be lower (less hypernasal) after PFU (p  =  0.009) compared to PF. Objective speech measures had varying results, with nasometry demonstrating a significant difference between groups (p  =  0.001), while PFT (p  =  0.525) did not demonstrate a statistical difference.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The use of a uvular lining flap in pharyngeal flap surgery may be associated with improved long term surgical outcomes, including both improvements in subjective and objective testing and a lower rate of revision surgery, without increased complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":55255,"journal":{"name":"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes After Pharyngeal Flap Surgery in Children: A Comparison of Lined Versus Unlined Flaps.\",\"authors\":\"Colin Fuller, J Reed Gardner, Olivia Speed, Ashlen Thomason, Isabella Zaniletti, Lisa Buckmiller, Adam Johnson, Larry Hartzell\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10556656231172642\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The addition of a uvular flap (PFU) was hypothesized to improve outcomes over standard pharyngeal flap (PF) for correction of velopharyngeal dysfunction. We report differences in outcomes of PF vs PFU at our institution.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Tertiary children's hospital.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Children who underwent PF or PFU with the three highest-volume surgeons at our institution in 2004-2017.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures: </strong>We examined differences in complications between groups, frequency and type of revision surgery, and speech-related measures including nasometry, pressure-flow testing (PFT) and perceptual speech analysis (PSA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>160 patients were included, 41 PF and 119 PFU (including 18 with Hogan technique). Patients undergoing PFU were older (7.6 yr vs 6.0 yr; p  =  0.037) and more likely to have cleft palate (63/119 vs 14/41; p  =  0.047). There was no significant difference in complications. With PFU, a decrease in airspace contracting revision surgeries was noted, (4/119 vs 8/41; p  =  0.002) which drove a reduction in revision surgery of all types (7/119 vs 13/41; p  =  0.033). However, patients that did undergo revision surgery after PFU underwent more revision procedures (p  =  0.032). PSA scores were found to be lower (less hypernasal) after PFU (p  =  0.009) compared to PF. Objective speech measures had varying results, with nasometry demonstrating a significant difference between groups (p  =  0.001), while PFT (p  =  0.525) did not demonstrate a statistical difference.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The use of a uvular lining flap in pharyngeal flap surgery may be associated with improved long term surgical outcomes, including both improvements in subjective and objective testing and a lower rate of revision surgery, without increased complications.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55255,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"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/10.1177/10556656231172642\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/5/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656231172642","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:与标准咽瓣(PF)相比,加用悬雍垂瓣(PFU)矫正咽喉功能障碍的疗效更佳。我们报告了本院采用 PF 与 PFU 治疗效果的差异:设计:回顾性队列研究:患者:接受 PF 或 PFU 手术的儿童:患者:2004-2017 年在我院接受 PF 或 PFU 手术的儿童:我们研究了组间并发症的差异、翻修手术的频率和类型,以及包括鼻腔测量、压力-流量测试(PFT)和感知言语分析(PSA)在内的言语相关指标:共纳入 160 名患者,其中 41 名接受 PF,119 名接受 PFU(包括 18 名采用霍根技术的患者)。接受 PFU 的患者年龄更大(7.6 岁 vs 6.0 岁;P = 0.037),更有可能患有腭裂(63/119 vs 14/41;P = 0.047)。并发症方面没有明显差异。使用 PFU 后,空腔收缩翻修手术有所减少(4/119 vs 8/41;p = 0.002),从而减少了所有类型的翻修手术(7/119 vs 13/41;p = 0.033)。不过,PFU 后接受翻修手术的患者接受了更多的翻修手术(p = 0.032)。与 PF 相比,PFU 后的 PSA 评分较低(低鼻音较少)(p = 0.009)。客观言语测量的结果各不相同,鼻腔测量显示组间存在显著差异(p = 0.001),而 PFT(p = 0.525)未显示统计学差异:结论:在咽瓣手术中使用悬雍垂衬垫瓣可改善长期手术效果,包括改善主观和客观测试,降低翻修手术率,同时不会增加并发症。
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
Outcomes After Pharyngeal Flap Surgery in Children: A Comparison of Lined Versus Unlined Flaps.

Objective: The addition of a uvular flap (PFU) was hypothesized to improve outcomes over standard pharyngeal flap (PF) for correction of velopharyngeal dysfunction. We report differences in outcomes of PF vs PFU at our institution.

Design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Tertiary children's hospital.

Patients: Children who underwent PF or PFU with the three highest-volume surgeons at our institution in 2004-2017.

Outcome measures: We examined differences in complications between groups, frequency and type of revision surgery, and speech-related measures including nasometry, pressure-flow testing (PFT) and perceptual speech analysis (PSA).

Results: 160 patients were included, 41 PF and 119 PFU (including 18 with Hogan technique). Patients undergoing PFU were older (7.6 yr vs 6.0 yr; p  =  0.037) and more likely to have cleft palate (63/119 vs 14/41; p  =  0.047). There was no significant difference in complications. With PFU, a decrease in airspace contracting revision surgeries was noted, (4/119 vs 8/41; p  =  0.002) which drove a reduction in revision surgery of all types (7/119 vs 13/41; p  =  0.033). However, patients that did undergo revision surgery after PFU underwent more revision procedures (p  =  0.032). PSA scores were found to be lower (less hypernasal) after PFU (p  =  0.009) compared to PF. Objective speech measures had varying results, with nasometry demonstrating a significant difference between groups (p  =  0.001), while PFT (p  =  0.525) did not demonstrate a statistical difference.

Conclusion: The use of a uvular lining flap in pharyngeal flap surgery may be associated with improved long term surgical outcomes, including both improvements in subjective and objective testing and a lower rate of revision surgery, without increased complications.

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
2.70
自引率
36.40%
发文量
215
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
Postoperative Daycare as a Safe and Cost-Effective Option for Secondary Alveolar Bone Graft (SABG) Surgery: A Retrospective Comparative Cohort Study. Prediction of Early Postoperative Pain in Infants Undergoing Primary Cleft Palate Repair. Jaw Surgery Workshop: Patient Preparation for Orthognathic Surgery. Prognosis of Maxillary Central Incisors in Patients with Bilateral Cleft Lip/Palate. Single-cell Transcriptome Landscape of DNA Methylome Regulators Associated with Orofacial Clefts in the Mouse Dental Pulp.
×
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