Suppr超能文献

腭裂修复术方法对置管频率的影响。

The effect of the palatoplasty method on the frequency of ear tube placement.

作者信息

Smith Lynnelle K, Gubbels Samuel P, MacArthur Carol J, Milczuk Henry A

机构信息

Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 Sam Jackson Park Rd, Portland, OR 97239-3098, USA.

出版信息

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008 Oct;134(10):1085-9. doi: 10.1001/archotol.134.10.1085.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the type of palate repair affects the frequency of subsequent ventilation tube placement.

DESIGN

Combined retrospective and prospective cohort with more than 2 years clinical follow-up after palatoplasty.

SETTING

Tertiary care children's hospital and clinic.

PATIENTS

A total of 170 patients with cleft palate (with or without cleft lip) underwent palatoplasty between 1995 and 2003. Sixty-nine patients with less than 2 years of follow-up visits and 1 patient who did not require ear tubes were excluded from this analysis.

INTERVENTIONS

Either traditional 2-flap palatoplasty (group A) or double-opposing Z-plasty (group B) was performed. The type of palatoplasty performed was based on the reconstructive surgeon's clinical decision. Ventilation tubes were placed for otitis media, conductive hearing loss, or eustachian tube dysfunction. Patients received routine follow-up care every 6 months or whenever acute problems arose. Data were analyzed with independent t tests, chi(2) tests, and Fisher exact tests.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Number of ear tubes placed after palatoplasty in each group.

RESULTS

Group A had a mean (SE) of 2.9 (0.2) sets of tubes placed, while group B had a mean (SE) of 1.8 (0.2) sets of tubes. Group A had significantly more sets of ventilation tubes placed (P < .001) than group B. Subgroup analysis based on type of cleft was performed.

CONCLUSION

Children with cleft palate who underwent double-opposing Z-plasty had fewer sets of ear tubes placed postoperatively than patients who had traditional repair.

摘要

目的

确定腭裂修复类型是否会影响后续置管通气的频率。

设计

腭裂修复术后进行超过2年临床随访的回顾性与前瞻性队列研究。

地点

三级医疗儿童医院及诊所。

患者

1995年至2003年间,共有170例腭裂(伴或不伴唇裂)患者接受了腭裂修复术。本分析排除了69例随访时间不足2年的患者以及1例无需置管的患者。

干预措施

实施传统的两瓣腭裂修复术(A组)或双反向Z形成形术(B组)。腭裂修复术的类型由重建外科医生根据临床决定。因中耳炎、传导性听力损失或咽鼓管功能障碍而放置通气管。患者每6个月接受常规随访,或在出现急性问题时随时随访。数据采用独立t检验、卡方检验和Fisher精确检验进行分析。

主要观察指标

每组腭裂修复术后放置的耳管数量。

结果

A组平均(标准误)放置2.9(0.2)套耳管,而B组平均(标准误)放置1.8(0.2)套耳管。A组放置的通气管套数明显多于B组(P <.001)。基于腭裂类型进行了亚组分析。

结论

与接受传统修复的患者相比,接受双反向Z形成形术的腭裂患儿术后放置的耳管套数更少。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验