These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Impact of palatoplasty techniques on tympanic membrane findings and hearing prognosis in children with cleft palate.
    Author: Kitaya S, Suzuki J, Ikeda R, Sato A, Adachi M, Shirakura M, Kobayashi Y, Shirakura S, Suzuki Y, Imai Y, Katori Y.
    Journal: Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2023 Nov; 174():111747. PubMed ID: 37820571.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: Children with cleft palate (CP) are at high risk of developing otitis media with effusion (OME) due to Eustachian tube (ET) dysfunction. Palatoplasty has been reported to decrease the frequency of middle ear disease and improve ET function, and although various techniques have been developed, there is no consensus on the differences in the impact of different techniques on the middle ear. The purpose of this study was to determine the differential effects of palatoplasty on middle ear function and hearing. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational survey of pediatric patients who underwent palatoplasty for CP between June 2010 and October 2018 at Tohoku University Hospital. Cases were divided into three groups depending on the palatoplasty procedures performed: the push-back palatoplasty group, the two-flap palatoplasty group, and the Furlow double-opposing Z-plasty group. We examined the differences in clinical characteristics between patients who underwent each procedure. The primary outcome variable was tympanic membrane (TM) findings, and the secondary outcome was hearing test results. RESULTS: Children who underwent the two-flap palatoplasty had a higher tympanostomy tube (TT) insertion rate and a higher total number of TT insertions than those who underwent the Furlow double-opposing Z-plasty or the push-back palatoplasty. The TM retraction rate tended to be lower in the Furlow double-opposing Z-plasty group than in the push-back palatoplasty group or the two-flap palatoplasty group. The hearing test results at the last visit were not significantly different among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Children who underwent the two-flap palatoplasty had a higher rate of TT insertions, potentially increasing the risk of TM perforation. In contrast, the Furlow double-opposing Z-plasty group had a lower tendency for TM regression, possibly due to improved ET function and reduced incidence of OME. It is important to understand the advantages and disadvantages of each technique before selecting one suitable for the child's cleft and arch width. Additionally, it is important to conduct regular follow-up of TM findings and hearing test results even after palatoplasty.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]