4.6 Article

Does palatal muscle reconstruction affect the functional outcome of cleft palate surgery?

期刊

PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY
卷 119, 期 6, 页码 1859-1865

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000259185.29517.79

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: This study was designed to compare two-layer palatoplasty (Wardill-Kilner V-Y pushback technique) without intravelar veloplasty versus threelayer palatoplasty (Kriens technique) with intravelar veloplasty with regard to postoperative functional outcome of eustachian tube and velopharyngeal competence. Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted enrolling 70 patients with nonsyndromic cleft palate (except submucous type of cleft) over a period of 2 years. They were divided into two main groups according to the type of cleft palate: group A (Veau class 11) included 32 patients and group B (Veau class I) included 38 patients. In each group, Wardill-Kilner palatoplasty (two-layer repair without intravelar veloplasty) versus Kriens palatoplasty (three-layer repair with intravelar veloplasty) was randomly selected for patients. Results: For the three-layer palatoplasty in both groups, there was a greater tendency for resolution of secretory otitis media in the early postoperative period, less time required for extrusion of the grommet tube, and a lower incidence of recurrent secretory otitis media. The incidence of postoperative velopharyngeal incompetence was greater with two-layer palatoplasty group. The incidence of palatal fistula was greater with three-layer palatoplasty. Conclusions: Palatal muscle reconstruction in cleft palate patients confers better functional results regarding velopharyngeal competence and eustachian tube function. Although the overall incidence of postoperative palatal fistula is within the accepted range, the incidence of fistula is higher in the palatal muscle reconstruction subgroup. Future studies are required that include a larger number of patients.

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

4.6
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