4.2 Article

The lipid laden macrophage index as a marker of aspiration in patients with type I and II laryngeal clefts

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2010.03.028

关键词

Laryngeal cleft; Lipid laden macrophage index; Pediatric aspiration; Laryngeal anomalies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Laryngeal clefts are uncommon congenital anomalies that may cause pulmonary aspiration, leading to considerable morbidity including recurrent pneumonias. The lipid laden macrophage index (LLMI) is a potential marker of pulmonary aspiration. The objective of this study was to assess the utility of the lipid laden macrophage index as a marker of severity of pulmonary aspiration in children with laryngeal clefts and its role in the management of these patients. Methods: An institutional review board approved retrospective review of all patients with laryngeal cleft who had also underwent direct laryngoscopy with rigid bronchoscopy and flexible bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage. The LLMI was measured from the lavage and compared to clinical and radiological data. Results: Forty-four patients with laryngeal clefts (31 type I clefts and 13 type II clefts) underwent assessment with flexible bronchoscopy and bronchoalveolar lavage. The median age at first outpatient visit in our Center for Aero-digestive Disorder was 0.92 years in patients with type I clefts and 1.66 years in patients with type 2 clefts. All patients in this study had at least one modified barium swallow (MBS) performed to assess for aspiration. The mean LLMI was significantly higher in patients with type II (mean +/- SEM) 81.8 +/- 11.9 clefts compared to type I clefts 44.9 +/- 5.6. Conclusions: We recommend obtaining LLMI in patients with laryngeal cleft. The lipid laden macrophage index is increased in patients with more severe laryngeal clefts, thus potentially predicting those patients whom would most benefit from early surgical intervention. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据