WORLD JOURNAL OF PLASTIC SURGERY
Sun, Apr 28, 2024
[Archive]
Volume 12, Issue 3 (2023)
WJPS 2023, 12(3): 94-99 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Peyvasteh M, Askarpour S, Moradi N, Mansouri A. Comparison of the Outcomes of Surgical Repair of Cleft Palate Performed by Modified Von Langenbeck and Bardach (Two-Flap Palatoplasty) Methods. WJPS 2023; 12 (3) :94-99
URL: http://wjps.ir/article-1-1172-en.html
URL: http://wjps.ir/article-1-1172-en.html
1- Department of Surgery, Ahvaz Jundishapur, University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
2- Department of Speech Therapy, Ahvaz Jundishapur, University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
2- Department of Speech Therapy, Ahvaz Jundishapur, University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
Abstract: (1192 Views)
Background: Cleft lip and cleft palate are one of the most common congenital craniofacial abnormalities in the skull and face. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of complications after primary cleft palate repair surgery, performed on patients referred to a children's hospital, and to use the information and results obtained from it to reduce the complications and improve the results of these surgeries.
Methods: In this cross-sectional-analytical study, using a census sampling method, the medical records of 94 consecutive cleft palate patients treated in Abuzar Hospital in Ahvaz, southern Iran, in the years 2019 to 2021 were studied. The rate of postoperative complications during the first week in terms of wound opening and flap necrosis and one month later in terms of fistula formation after surgery were also extracted from the files.
Results: Ninety-four patients with congenital cleft palate (57.4% male and 42.6% female) were enrolled. The gap width in all studied patients was 14 ± 5 mm. The frequency of complications of surgical wound opening, flap necrosis, oronasal fistula and hypernasality in von Langenbeck group was 9.5%, 0.15% and 28.1% respectively, and in Bardach group was 9.5 %, 15% and 33.3% respectively.
Conclusion: There were no significant differences between the two surgical methods in terms of postoperative complications. Besides, what is important in choosing a surgical method is the patient's clinical condition, the surgeon's experience and skill, and his choice.
Methods: In this cross-sectional-analytical study, using a census sampling method, the medical records of 94 consecutive cleft palate patients treated in Abuzar Hospital in Ahvaz, southern Iran, in the years 2019 to 2021 were studied. The rate of postoperative complications during the first week in terms of wound opening and flap necrosis and one month later in terms of fistula formation after surgery were also extracted from the files.
Results: Ninety-four patients with congenital cleft palate (57.4% male and 42.6% female) were enrolled. The gap width in all studied patients was 14 ± 5 mm. The frequency of complications of surgical wound opening, flap necrosis, oronasal fistula and hypernasality in von Langenbeck group was 9.5%, 0.15% and 28.1% respectively, and in Bardach group was 9.5 %, 15% and 33.3% respectively.
Conclusion: There were no significant differences between the two surgical methods in terms of postoperative complications. Besides, what is important in choosing a surgical method is the patient's clinical condition, the surgeon's experience and skill, and his choice.
References
1. Candotto V, Oberti L, Gabrione F, et al. Current concepts on cleft lip and palate etiology. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents 2019 May-Jun;33(3 Suppl. 1):145-51. Dental supplement.
2. Deshpande GS, Campbell A, Jagtap R, et al. Early complications after cleft palate repair: a multivariate statistical analysis of 709 patients. J Craniofac Surg 2014 Sep;25(5):1614-8. [DOI:10.1097/SCS.0000000000001113]
3. Salari N, Darvishi N, Heydari M, Bokaee S, Darvishi F, Mohammadi M. Global prevalence of cleft palate, cleft lip and cleft palate and lip: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 2022 Apr;123(2):110-20. [DOI:10.1016/j.jormas.2021.05.008]
4. Namdar P, Etezadi T, Raisolsadat SMA, Lal Alizadeh F, Shiva a. Treatment goals in individuals with orofacial clefts: A literature review. Clinical Excellence 2020;9(4):45-55.
5. Ishaq I, Fayyaz GQ. Recurrent palatal fistula and nasal regurgitation: Anteriorly based dorsal tongue flap: A reliable solution. The Professional Medical Journal 2013;20(03):390-8. [DOI:10.29309/TPMJ/2013.20.03.830]
6. Williams WN, Seagle MB, Pegoraro-Krook MI, et al. Prospective clinical trial comparing outcome measures between Furlow and von Langenbeck Palatoplasties for UCLP. Ann Plast Surg 2011 Feb;66(2):154-63. [DOI:10.1097/SAP.0b013e3181d60763]
7. Smith KS, Ugalde CM. Primary palatoplasty using bipedicle flaps (modified von Langenbeck technique). Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2009 Sep;17(2):147-56. [DOI:10.1016/j.cxom.2009.05.005]
8. Bardach J. Two-Flap palatoplasty: Bardach's technique. Operative Techniques in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 1995 1995/11/01/;2(4):211-4. [DOI:10.1016/S1071-0949(06)80034-X]
9. Schultz RC. Management and timing of cleft palate fistula repair. Plast Reconstr Surg 1986 Dec;78(6):739-47. [DOI:10.1097/00006534-198678060-00004]
10. Adesina OA, Efunkoya AA, Omeje KU, Idon PI. Postoperative complications from primary repair of cleft lip and palate in a semi-urban Nigerian teaching hospital. Niger Med J 2016 May-Jun;57(3):155-9. [DOI:10.4103/0300-1652.184059]
11. Abdurrazaq TO, Micheal AO, Lanre AW, Olugbenga OM, Akin LL. Surgical outcome and complications following cleft lip and palate repair in a teaching hospital in Nigeria. Afr J Paediatr Surg 2013 Oct-Dec;10(4):345-57. [DOI:10.4103/0189-6725.125447]
12. Paine KM, Tahiri Y, Wes AM, et al. An Assessment of 30-Day Complications in Primary Cleft Lip Repair: A Review of the 2012 ACS NSQIP Pediatric. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2016 May;53(3):283-9. [DOI:10.1597/14-251]
13. Nguyen C, Hernandez-Boussard T, Davies SM, Bhattacharya J, Khosla RK, Curtin CM. Cleft palate surgery: an evaluation of length of stay, complications, and costs by hospital type. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2014 Jul;51(4):412-9. [DOI:10.1597/12-150]
14. Raghavan U, Vijayadev V, Rao D, Ullas G. Postoperative Management of Cleft Lip and Palate Surgery. Facial Plast Surg 2018 Dec;34(6):605-11. [DOI:10.1055/s-0038-1676381]
15. Sakran KA, Liu R, Yu T, Al-Rokhami RK, He D. A comparative study of three palatoplasty techniques in wide cleft palates. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2021 Feb;50(2):191-7. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijom.2020.07.016]
16. Swanson MA, Auslander A, Morales T, et al. Predictors of Complication Following Cleft Lip and Palate Surgery in a Low-Resource Setting: A Prospective Outcomes Study in Nicaragua. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2022 Dec;59(12):1452-60. [DOI:10.1177/10556656211046810]
17. Li F, Wang HT, Chen YY, et al. Cleft relapse and oronasal fistula after Furlow palatoplasty in infants with cleft palate: incidence and risk factors. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017 Mar;46(3):275-80. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijom.2016.09.019]
18. Kara M, Calis M, Kara I, Kulak Kayikci ME, Gunaydin RO, Ozgur F. Comparison of speech outcomes using type 2b intravelar veloplasty or furlow double-opposing Z plasty for soft palate repair of patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2021 Mar;49(3):215-22. [DOI:10.1016/j.jcms.2021.01.003]
19. Paniagua LM, Collares M, Costa S. Comparative study of three techniques of palatoplasty in patients with cleft of lip and palate via instrumental and auditory-perceptive evaluations. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2010;14(1):18-31.
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
