Pediatric Robotic Laryngeal Cleft Repair.

Autor: Worden CP; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA., Prince AC; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA., Kirse SN; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA., Rutter C; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA., Hackman TG; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA., Yarbrough WG; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.; Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA., Zanation AM; Carolina Ear, Nose & Throat-Sinus and Allergy Center, PA, Hickory, North Carolina, USA., Zdanski CJ; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery [Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg] 2024 Jul; Vol. 171 (1), pp. 254-260. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Mar 15.
DOI: 10.1002/ohn.723
Abstrakt: Objective: Compare surgical and swallow outcomes in robotic versus traditional laryngeal cleft (LC) repairs.
Study Design: Retrospective cohort study.
Setting: Tertiary care pediatric hospital.
Methods: Pediatric 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.
Results: Eighteen 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.
Conclusion: Robotic 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.
(© 2024 American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation.)
Databáze: MEDLINE