4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

When patients choose: comparison of Nuss, Ravitch, and Leonard procedures for primary repair of pectus excavatum

Journal

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY
Volume 44, Issue 6, Pages 1113-1119

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2009.02.017

Keywords

Pectus excavatum; Chest wall deformity; Nuss; Ravitch; Leonard

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Purpose: Pectus excavatum is a common chest wall deformity, and several procedures have been developed for its correction. We allow patients to choose among Leonard, Nuss, and Ravitch procedures. This study aimed to determine which procedure most patients select and the resultant outcomes. Methods: Charts were reviewed of all pectus excavatum repairs performed for 4 years by a practice covering a university-based children's hospital. Procedure choice, operative time, length of stay, analgesia, fees, and complications were recorded. Results: The Ravitch procedure was chosen by 60.9% of our patients, Leonard procedure by 23.9%, and Nuss procedure by 15.2%. Operative times were not significantly different among the groups. The mean length of stay was 2.2 days (Ravitch), 1.5 days (Leonard), and 3.9 days (Nuss) (P < .005). Epidural analgesia/patient-controlled analgesia pump requirements were 50% (Ravitch), 5% (Leonard), and 100% (Nuss). The mean charges were $27,414 (Ravitch), $18,094 (Leonard), and $43,749 (Nuss) (P < .05). The overall complication rate was 16.3%. The complications among each group were as follows: Ravitch, 14.3%; Leonard, 9.1%; and Nuss, 35.7%. Conclusions: We allow patients to choose among Leonard, Ravitch, and Nuss procedures for repair of pectus excavatum. Most select the Ravitch procedure. Length of stay, fees, analgesic needs, and complication rate were highest among patients in the Nuss group; all of these variables were lowest in the Leonard group. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available