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

dc.authorid0000-0003-2166-8643
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.accessioned2025-05-10T19:39:14Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.departmentİstanbul Medeniyet Üniversitesi
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.
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/SCS.0000000000000967
dc.identifier.endpage1733
dc.identifier.issn1049-2275
dc.identifier.issn1536-3732
dc.identifier.issue5
dc.identifier.pmid25162544
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ3
dc.identifier.startpage1728
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000000967
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14730/9585
dc.identifier.volume25
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000341933600073
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ3
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherLippincott Williams & Wilkins
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Craniofacial Surgery
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.snmzKA_WOS_20250302
dc.subjectV-Y pushback
dc.subjectrotation palatoplasty
dc.subjectoronasal fistula
dc.subjectcleft palate
dc.titleComparison of the Fistula Risk Associated With Rotation Palatoplasty and Conventional Palatoplasty for Cleft Palate Repair
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Orijinal paket

Listeleniyor 1 - 1 / 1
Yükleniyor...
Küçük Resim
İsim:
9585.pdf
Boyut:
1.6 MB
Biçim:
Adobe Portable Document Format