DOI 10.1016/j.ijporl.2007.05.001
Aryepiglottoplasty for laryngomalacia: results and recommendations following a case series of 84.
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES
To examine one consultant's experience of aryepiglottoplasty at Leeds General Infirmary. To identify risk factors for post-operative complications. Comparing the outcomes of surgery with the published literature on aryepiglottoplasty.
DESIGN
A retrospective case series of consecutive patients undergoing aryepiglottoplasty identified from theatre records.
SETTING
The Otolaryngology Department, Leeds General Infirmary. This is part of Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and is a tertiary referral centre with regional paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) and specialises in managing paediatric airway pathology.
PARTICIPANTS
Ninety-one consecutive cases of aryepiglottoplasties, between 1997 and 2005. The medical records for 84 cases were reviewed.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Unplanned admissions to PICU, complication rate, length of post-operative hospital stay, and successful resolution of symptoms amongst our patient group.
RESULTS
The primary indication for surgery was found to be severe stridor. There was a low rate (3.6%) of unplanned admissions to the PICU. 7.1% of patients suffered a post-operative aspiration pneumonia. The majority (66.7%) of patients were able to return home after just one night in hospital. 11.9% of patients continued to have some stridor at follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
The majority of patients undergoing aryepiglottoplasty for isolated laryngomalacia can be monitored overnight on a paediatric surgical ward and return home the following day (85%). Furthermore, they should expect improvement of their stridor with a single procedure (90%). Aryepiglottoplasty at an experienced unit is a low-risk procedure with a high success rate.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
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.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.