Suppr超能文献

腭部松弛切口与腭成形术中鼻咽部松弛切口的比较。

Palatal relaxing incisions versus nasopharyngeal relaxing incisions in Palatoplasty.

机构信息

State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases & National Centre for Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, No. 14, Section 3 of Renmin Nan Road, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041, China.

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Jiblah University for Medical and Health Sciences, Ibb, Yemen.

出版信息

Clin Oral Investig. 2024 Oct 4;28(10):568. doi: 10.1007/s00784-024-05976-w.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Bone denudation after conventional relaxing incisions could be a critical factor in inhibiting maxillofacial growth. To address this, alternative relaxing incisions were designed. Thus, this study aimed to compare the effectiveness of palatal relaxing incisions versus nasopharyngeal relaxing incisions in enhancing postoperative outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted, involving a total of 120 patients divided into three groups: 40 patients have received modified Furlow palatoplasty with nasopharyngeal relaxing incisions (M.F + N.P.I palatoplasty), and 40 patients who received modified Furlow palatoplasty with palatal relaxing incisions (M.F + P.R.I palatoplasty). The other 40 patients received original Furlow palatoplasty without relaxing incisions (F palatoplasty). Data collected included gender, cleft type, cleft width, age at repair, velopharyngeal function, presence of palatal fistula, and follow-up. The chi-square test compared frequencies of sex, cleft type, postoperative fistula, and velopharyngeal outcomes across groups. The Mann-Whitney and independent t-tests compared mean values, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

The mean age at repair was similar across groups, with follow-up periods ranging from 5 to 11 years. No significant differences were found among the M.F + N.P.I and M.F + P.L.I groups regarding gender, cleft type, cleft width, and age at repair. However, the F group had a significantly narrowest cleft width compared to the other groups. Postoperative outcomes showed no significant differences in velopharyngeal function among the three groups, but the F group had a significantly higher rate of palatal fistula (32.5%) compared to the M.F + P.L.I (10%) and M.F + N.P.I (7.5%) groups. A comparison of the two modified Furlow techniques revealed no significant differences in velopharyngeal closure rates or the incidence of velopharyngeal insufficiency and persistent palatal fistula across different Veau classifications.

CONCLUSIONS

While both incisions showed similar impacts on palatoplasty outcomes, palatal relaxing incisions may expose more bone and pose a higher risk of secondary healing issues. Therefore, nasopharyngeal relaxing incisions are recommended as an effective and potentially preferable technique in palatoplasty whenever feasible.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The current study suggests that, whenever feasible, nasopharyngeal relaxing incisions are advised as an effective and potentially superior technique in palatoplasty.

摘要

背景

传统松弛切口后的骨暴露可能是抑制颌面生长的一个关键因素。为了解决这个问题,设计了替代的松弛切口。因此,本研究旨在比较腭松弛切口与鼻咽松弛切口在增强术后效果方面的有效性。

材料和方法

进行了一项回顾性队列研究,共纳入 120 名患者,分为三组:40 名患者接受改良 Furlow 腭裂修复术联合鼻咽松弛切口(M.F+N.P.I 腭裂修复术),40 名患者接受改良 Furlow 腭裂修复术联合腭松弛切口(M.F+P.R.I 腭裂修复术),40 名患者接受无松弛切口的原始 Furlow 腭裂修复术(F 腭裂修复术)。收集的数据包括性别、裂隙类型、裂隙宽度、修复年龄、腭咽功能、是否存在腭瘘以及随访情况。采用卡方检验比较各组之间的性别、裂隙类型、术后瘘管和腭咽功能的发生率。采用曼-惠特尼和独立 t 检验比较均值,以 p<0.05 为统计学意义。

结果

三组的平均修复年龄相似,随访时间为 5 至 11 年。M.F+N.P.I 和 M.F+P.L.I 组之间在性别、裂隙类型、裂隙宽度和修复年龄方面无显著差异。然而,F 组的裂隙宽度明显较窄。三组之间腭咽功能的术后结果无显著差异,但 F 组的腭瘘发生率(32.5%)明显高于 M.F+P.L.I(10%)和 M.F+N.P.I(7.5%)组。比较两种改良 Furlow 技术发现,在不同的 Veau 分类中,两种技术的腭咽闭合率、腭咽功能不全和持续性腭瘘的发生率无显著差异。

结论

虽然两种切口对腭裂修复术的结果都有相似的影响,但腭松弛切口可能暴露更多的骨,并有更高的二次愈合问题风险。因此,只要可行,鼻咽松弛切口被推荐为腭裂修复术中一种有效且可能更优的技术。

临床相关性

本研究表明,只要可行,在腭裂修复术中,建议采用鼻咽松弛切口作为一种有效且可能更优的技术。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验