Stomatologiia · 2025
[New approach for cleft palate repair with one hemi-uvula preservation based on anatomical landmarks].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание 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.
Ivanov A L, Sukacheva S A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To develop a method for reconstructing the distal soft palate in cleft closure using reproducible anatomical landmarks.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 110 patients with congenital cleft lip and/or palate were included in two cohorts (53 and 57 patients). Each cohort was divided into three groups based on the surgical technique: Group 1 - anatomical landmark-based technique; Group 2 - Ivanov-Ageeva technique; Group 3 - traditional methods. Outcomes were assessed using a custom aesthetic scoring scale, parental satisfaction questionnaires, and measurements of operative time and intraoperative blood loss.
RESULTS: The landmark-based technique provided the best and most consistent aesthetic results. Surgeon-assigned aesthetic scores were 14/6±0.4 (Group 1), 12.3±0.9 (Group 2), and 8.8±1.2 (Group 3), p < 0.001. Operative time was shorter in Group 1 (155.1±29/4 min) than in Group 2 (197.5±33.8 min), p < 0.001. Parental satisfaction was also highest in Group 1 (4.77±0.44), p < 0.001.
CONCLUSION: Incorporating anatomical landmarks in cleft palate repair standardizes the surgical approach and significantly improves aesthetic and functional outcomes.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 110 patients with congenital cleft lip and/or palate were included in two cohorts (53 and 57 patients). Each cohort was divided into three groups based on the surgical technique: Group 1 - anatomical landmark-based technique; Group 2 - Ivanov-Ageeva technique; Group 3 - traditional methods. Outcomes were assessed using a custom aesthetic scoring scale, parental satisfaction questionnaires, and measurements of operative time and intraoperative blood loss.
RESULTS: The landmark-based technique provided the best and most consistent aesthetic results. Surgeon-assigned aesthetic scores were 14/6±0.4 (Group 1), 12.3±0.9 (Group 2), and 8.8±1.2 (Group 3), p < 0.001. Operative time was shorter in Group 1 (155.1±29/4 min) than in Group 2 (197.5±33.8 min), p < 0.001. Parental satisfaction was also highest in Group 1 (4.77±0.44), p < 0.001.
CONCLUSION: Incorporating anatomical landmarks in cleft palate repair standardizes the surgical approach and significantly improves aesthetic and functional outcomes.