Pediatric Robotic Laryngeal Cleft Repair
Fuente:
Wiley Open Access
Salvato in:
| Autori principali: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Artículo Open Access |
| Pubblicazione: |
Wiley
2024
|
| Soggetti: | |
| Accesso online: | |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1867002122045751296 |
|---|---|
| author | Cameron P. Worden Andrew C. Prince Samuel N. Kirse Christopher Rutter Trevor G. Hackman Wendell G. Yarbrough Adam M. Zanation Carlton J. Zdanski |
| author_facet | Cameron P. Worden Andrew C. Prince Samuel N. Kirse Christopher Rutter Trevor G. Hackman Wendell G. Yarbrough Adam M. Zanation Carlton J. Zdanski Cameron P. Worden Andrew C. Prince Samuel N. Kirse Christopher Rutter Trevor G. Hackman Wendell G. Yarbrough Adam M. Zanation Carlton J. Zdanski |
| collection | Wiley Open Access |
| contents | Pediatric Robotic Laryngeal Cleft Repair Cameron P. Worden Andrew C. Prince Samuel N. Kirse Christopher Rutter Trevor G. Hackman Wendell G. Yarbrough Adam M. Zanation Carlton J. Zdanski Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery AbstractObjectiveCompare surgical and swallow outcomes in robotic versus traditional laryngeal cleft (LC) repairs.Study DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingTertiary care pediatric hospital.MethodsPediatric patients who underwent robotic or traditional (open or endoscopic) LC repair between 2010 and 2021 were identified. Patient characteristics, operative times, adverse events, hospital length of stay (LOS), and modified barium swallow study (MBSS) results were compared.ResultsEighteen robotic and thirty traditional LC repairs were identified. Mean surgical (149 vs 111 min, P < .05) and OR times (207 vs 139 min, P < .002) were increased for robotic type I LC repairs, but were similar for type II and III LC. Mean hospital LOS was increased for robotic type I LC repairs (2.6 vs 1.2 days, P < .006), but was decreased for type II (4 vs 12.2 days) and type III (4.3 vs 94.5 days) LC. Postoperative MBSS results were improved for robotic type I LC repairs at 12 months (82% vs 43%, P = .05), and trended toward improvement at 6 months for type II (75% vs 22%), and type III (67% vs 50%) LC repairs, although significance was limited for type II and III LC due to the number of subjects. A robotic approach was used successfully to revise all recurrent LC that failed traditional repairs.ConclusionRobotic type 1 LC repairs demonstrated increased operative times and hospital LOS but improved postoperative swallow outcomes compared to traditional approaches may be particularly useful in cases of recurrent clefts. 10.1002/ohn.723 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/ohn.723 |
| format | Artículo Open Access |
| id | wiley_oa_10_1002_ohn_723 |
| institution | Wiley Open Access |
| license_str_mv | http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | wiley_oa |
| spellingShingle | Pediatric Robotic Laryngeal Cleft Repair Cameron P. Worden Andrew C. Prince Samuel N. Kirse Christopher Rutter Trevor G. Hackman Wendell G. Yarbrough Adam M. Zanation Carlton J. Zdanski Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Pediatric Robotic Laryngeal Cleft Repair Cameron P. Worden Andrew C. Prince Samuel N. Kirse Christopher Rutter Trevor G. Hackman Wendell G. Yarbrough Adam M. Zanation Carlton J. Zdanski Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery AbstractObjectiveCompare surgical and swallow outcomes in robotic versus traditional laryngeal cleft (LC) repairs.Study DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingTertiary care pediatric hospital.MethodsPediatric patients who underwent robotic or traditional (open or endoscopic) LC repair between 2010 and 2021 were identified. Patient characteristics, operative times, adverse events, hospital length of stay (LOS), and modified barium swallow study (MBSS) results were compared.ResultsEighteen robotic and thirty traditional LC repairs were identified. Mean surgical (149 vs 111 min, P < .05) and OR times (207 vs 139 min, P < .002) were increased for robotic type I LC repairs, but were similar for type II and III LC. Mean hospital LOS was increased for robotic type I LC repairs (2.6 vs 1.2 days, P < .006), but was decreased for type II (4 vs 12.2 days) and type III (4.3 vs 94.5 days) LC. Postoperative MBSS results were improved for robotic type I LC repairs at 12 months (82% vs 43%, P = .05), and trended toward improvement at 6 months for type II (75% vs 22%), and type III (67% vs 50%) LC repairs, although significance was limited for type II and III LC due to the number of subjects. A robotic approach was used successfully to revise all recurrent LC that failed traditional repairs.ConclusionRobotic type 1 LC repairs demonstrated increased operative times and hospital LOS but improved postoperative swallow outcomes compared to traditional approaches may be particularly useful in cases of recurrent clefts. 10.1002/ohn.723 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor |
| title | Pediatric Robotic Laryngeal Cleft Repair |
| topic | Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery |
| url | https://aao-hnsfjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ohn.723 |