Comparison of the Fistula Risk Associated With Rotation Palatoplasty and Conventional Palatoplasty for Cleft Palate Repair

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authoridIsik, Daghan/0000-0003-2166-8643
dc.contributor.authorKahraman, Ahmet
dc.contributor.authorYuce, Serdar
dc.contributor.authorKocak, Omer Faruk
dc.contributor.authorCanbaz, Yasin
dc.contributor.authorGuner, Sukriye Ilkay
dc.contributor.authorAtik, Bekir
dc.contributor.authorIsik, Daghan
dc.date.accessioned2024-09-18T21:00:38Z
dc.date.available2024-09-18T21:00:38Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.departmentHatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractThe aims of the cleft palate repair techniques are to reduce the velopharyngeal insufficiency risk and oronasal fistula development to minimal levels without affecting the maxillofacial development. In this article, we present a retrospective study comparing the conventional palatoplasty techniques with the new technique of rotation palatoplasty for the risk of development of oronasal fistula. Materials and Methods: Of the 100 patients who were operated on because of cleft palate between the years 2002 and 2008, 12 patients had Furlow palatoplasty, and 88 patients received the Veau-Wardill-Kilner (V-Y pushback) operation (group C). A total of 67 patients who were operated on between 2008 and 2011 had rotation palatoplasty (group R). Results: One hundred patients were men, and 67 were women. Among all the patient groups, 22.8% were classified as Veau 1, 24.6% were classified as Veau 2, 37.1% were classified as Veau 3, and 15.6% were classified as Veau 4. The rate of fistula was found to be 17.7% in all patients. Fistula development was found in 6% of the patients in group R (4/67) and in 18% of the patients in group C (18/100). The difference between group R and group C regarding the number of patients who developed fistula was statistically significant (P = 0.011). Conclusions: The Veau classification of the cleft palate affects the risk of fistula development, and the risk for fistula after rotation palatoplasty is lower than that associated with the V-Y pushback technique.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/SCS.0000000000000967
dc.identifier.endpage1733en_US
dc.identifier.issn1049-2275
dc.identifier.issn1536-3732
dc.identifier.issue5en_US
dc.identifier.pmid25162544en_US
dc.identifier.startpage1728en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000000967
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12483/12794
dc.identifier.volume25en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000341933600073en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ4en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherLippincott Williams & Wilkinsen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Craniofacial Surgeryen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectV-Y pushbacken_US
dc.subjectrotation palatoplastyen_US
dc.subjectoronasal fistulaen_US
dc.subjectcleft palateen_US
dc.titleComparison of the Fistula Risk Associated With Rotation Palatoplasty and Conventional Palatoplasty for Cleft Palate Repairen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Orijinal paket
Listeleniyor 1 - 1 / 1
[ N/A ]
İsim:
Tam Metin / Full Text
Boyut:
1.6 MB
Biçim:
Adobe Portable Document Format
İndir

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu