3.9 Article

Subperiosteal Release of the Floor of the Mouth to Correct Airway Obstruction in Pierre Robin Sequence: Review of 31 Cases

期刊

CLEFT PALATE-CRANIOFACIAL JOURNAL
卷 49, 期 1, 页码 14-20

出版社

ALLIANCE COMMUNICATIONS GROUP DIVISION ALLEN PRESS
DOI: 10.1597/10-173

关键词

airway obstruction; distraction osteogenesis; glossopexy; Pierre Robin; subperiosteal release

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate subperiosteal release of the floor of the mouth (SRFM) musculature to correct neonatal airway obstruction in children with Pierre Robin sequence and to compare this procedure with other surgical options available. Methods: A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent a SRFM for neonatal severe airway obstruction unresponsive to conservative management was performed. Preoperative and postoperative oxygenation parameters, sleep studies, feeding difficulties, and long-term evolution were documented. Results: Thirty-one consecutive patients between 1995 and 2009, 19 boys and 12 girls, had an SRFM procedure to alleviate severe neonatal airway obstruction. Eight children were syndromic, 15 had associated malformations, and eight had an isolated Pierre Robin sequence. The airway obstruction was corrected with SRFM alone in 26 children (84%), three patients remained dependent on nasopharyngeal airway, and two required subsequent mandibular osteogenic distraction procedures following the SRFM to manage persistent obstruction. No patient required a tracheostomy. The average age at SRFM was 33 days, and the patients were kept intubated for an average of 6 days postoperatively. Average hospital stay after the surgery was 45 days, and 10 patients went home with gavage feeding. Conclusions: The SRFM is effective for the treatment of severe airway obstruction in patients with Pierre Robin sequence. The procedure is simple and has fewer complications and secondary procedures than other surgical options for correction of the airway obstruction.

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