3.9 Article Proceedings Paper

Pediatric cricotracheal resection - Surgical outcomes and risk factor analysis

期刊

ARCHIVES OF OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD & NECK SURGERY
卷 131, 期 10, 页码 896-899

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archotol.131.10.896

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To identify risk factors for operation-specific Outcomes of pediatric cricotracheal resection (CTR). Design: We identified the first 100 consecutive children undergoing CTR at our institution from January 1, 1993, to December 31, 2004. Retrospective review of medical records provided data on demographics, operation dates, decannulation dates, and proposed risk factors, including age, stenosis grade, vocal cord function, Down syndrome, history of distal tracheal surgery, history of open laryngotracheal surgery, presence of tracheotomy at the time of operation, use of,suprahyoid release, extended CTR, and use of chin-to-chest sutures. Complete data sets were available for 93 patients.: We performed multivariable logistic regression analysis to identify significant independent risk factors. Setting: A tertiary care children's hospital. Patients: All patients younger than 18 years who underwent CTR at our institution. Main Outcome Measures: Operation-specific and overall decannulation rates. Results: Results of the preoperative evaluation showed grade III or IV stenosis in 89 patients (96%). The overall decannulation rate included 87 patients (94%); the operation-specific decannulation rate, 66 patients (71%). The only significant risk factor for failure to decannulate after 1 operation was the presence of unilateral or bilateral vocal cord paralysis (P=.007). Conclusions: Cricotraceal resection may be safely performed in patients with multiple airway lesions. Patients with a history of vocal cord paralysis who undergo CTR often require more than I open airway procedure for decannulation and should be counseled appropriately. This study represents the largest reported series of pediatric CTR.

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

3.9
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