The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2022
25-year Follow-up of Primary Tibial Periosteal Graft for Hard Palate Repair in Cleft Lip and Palate: Outcomes, Concerns and Controversies.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rizzo Maria Ida, Cajozzo Marta, Bucci Daria, Pistoia Angelica, Palmieri Annapina, Rajabtork Zadeh Oriana, Palmieri Giancarlo, Spuntarelli Giorgio, Zama Mario
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates long-term outcomes in adults with Unilateral and Bilateral Cleft Lip and Palate (UCLP/BCLP) treated during the period 1992 to 1995 with tibial periosteal graft in primary repair.
DESIGN: Retrospective study.
SETTING: Department of Plastic and Maxillofacial Surgery, Children's Hospital Bambino Gesù (Italy).
PATIENTS: The study included 52 patients with non-syndromic BCLP/UCLP who met the inclusion criteria.
INTERVENTIONS: All patients underwent a standardized surgical protocol using a tibial periosteal graft as primary repair of the hard palate.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Long-term outcomes on maxillary growth, residual oronasal fistula, and leg length discrepancy.
RESULTS: About <2% of patients showed oral-nasal communication. Mean value of maxillary depth was 86° ± 4.5°. The lower value for maxillary retrusion was 76.8° in relation to the Frankfurt plane. At the x-ray control, 12.2% of patients showed leg discrepancy with a difference of always <2 cm.
CONCLUSIONS: The rate of maxillary retrusion obtained was the same if compared to other techniques. Tibial periosteal graft reduces the risk of fistula and the need for reintervention after secondary bone graft. The study did not observe negative impacts on leg growth after 25 years.
DESIGN: Retrospective study.
SETTING: Department of Plastic and Maxillofacial Surgery, Children's Hospital Bambino Gesù (Italy).
PATIENTS: The study included 52 patients with non-syndromic BCLP/UCLP who met the inclusion criteria.
INTERVENTIONS: All patients underwent a standardized surgical protocol using a tibial periosteal graft as primary repair of the hard palate.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Long-term outcomes on maxillary growth, residual oronasal fistula, and leg length discrepancy.
RESULTS: About <2% of patients showed oral-nasal communication. Mean value of maxillary depth was 86° ± 4.5°. The lower value for maxillary retrusion was 76.8° in relation to the Frankfurt plane. At the x-ray control, 12.2% of patients showed leg discrepancy with a difference of always <2 cm.
CONCLUSIONS: The rate of maxillary retrusion obtained was the same if compared to other techniques. Tibial periosteal graft reduces the risk of fistula and the need for reintervention after secondary bone graft. The study did not observe negative impacts on leg growth after 25 years.