The effect of the palatoplasty method on the frequency of ear tube placement

Lynnelle K. Smith, Samuel P. Gubbels, Carol Macarthur, Henry Milczuk

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether the type of palate repair affects the frequency of subsequent ventilation tube placement. Design: Combined retrospective and prospective cohort withmorethan2years clinical follow-up after palatoplasty. Setting: Tertiary care children's hospital and clinic. Patients: A total of 170 patients with cleft palate (with or without cleft lip) underwent palatoplasty between 1995 and 2003. Sixty-nine patients with less than 2 years of follow-up visits and 1 patient who did not require ear tubes were excluded from this analysis. Interventions: Either traditional 2-flap palatoplasty (group A) or double-opposing Z-plasty (group B) was performed. The type of palatoplasty performed was based on the reconstructive surgeon's clinical decision. Ventilation tubes were placed for otitis media, conductive hearing loss, or eustachian tube dysfunction. Patients received routine follow-up care every 6 months or whenever acute problems arose. Data were analyzed with independent t tests, χ2 tests, and Fisher exact tests. Main Outcome Measures: Number of ear tubes placed after palatoplasty in each group. Results: Group A had a mean (SE) of 2.9 (0.2) sets of tubes placed, while group B had a mean (SE) of 1.8 (0.2) sets of tubes. Group A had significantly more sets of ventilation tubes placed (P <.001) than group B. Subgroup analysis based on type of cleft was performed. Conclusion: Children with cleft palate who underwent double-opposing Z-plasty had fewer sets of ear tubes placed postoperatively than patients who had traditional repair.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1085-1089
Number of pages5
JournalArchives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
Volume134
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2008

Fingerprint

Ear
Ventilation
Cleft Palate
Conductive Hearing Loss
Eustachian Tube
Aftercare
Palate
Cleft Lip
Otitis Media
Tertiary Healthcare
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology
  • Surgery

Cite this

The effect of the palatoplasty method on the frequency of ear tube placement. / Smith, Lynnelle K.; Gubbels, Samuel P.; Macarthur, Carol; Milczuk, Henry.

In: Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Vol. 134, No. 10, 10.2008, p. 1085-1089.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{be19156ae301403baad606feeafb1039,
title = "The effect of the palatoplasty method on the frequency of ear tube placement",
abstract = "Objective: To determine whether the type of palate repair affects the frequency of subsequent ventilation tube placement. Design: Combined retrospective and prospective cohort withmorethan2years clinical follow-up after palatoplasty. Setting: Tertiary care children's hospital and clinic. Patients: A total of 170 patients with cleft palate (with or without cleft lip) underwent palatoplasty between 1995 and 2003. Sixty-nine patients with less than 2 years of follow-up visits and 1 patient who did not require ear tubes were excluded from this analysis. Interventions: Either traditional 2-flap palatoplasty (group A) or double-opposing Z-plasty (group B) was performed. The type of palatoplasty performed was based on the reconstructive surgeon's clinical decision. Ventilation tubes were placed for otitis media, conductive hearing loss, or eustachian tube dysfunction. Patients received routine follow-up care every 6 months or whenever acute problems arose. Data were analyzed with independent t tests, χ2 tests, and Fisher exact tests. Main Outcome Measures: Number of ear tubes placed after palatoplasty in each group. Results: Group A had a mean (SE) of 2.9 (0.2) sets of tubes placed, while group B had a mean (SE) of 1.8 (0.2) sets of tubes. Group A had significantly more sets of ventilation tubes placed (P <.001) than group B. Subgroup analysis based on type of cleft was performed. Conclusion: Children with cleft palate who underwent double-opposing Z-plasty had fewer sets of ear tubes placed postoperatively than patients who had traditional repair.",
author = "Smith, {Lynnelle K.} and Gubbels, {Samuel P.} and Carol Macarthur and Henry Milczuk",
year = "2008",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1001/archotol.134.10.1085",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "134",
pages = "1085--1089",
journal = "JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery",
issn = "2168-6181",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effect of the palatoplasty method on the frequency of ear tube placement

AU - Smith, Lynnelle K.

AU - Gubbels, Samuel P.

AU - Macarthur, Carol

AU - Milczuk, Henry

PY - 2008/10

Y1 - 2008/10

N2 - Objective: To determine whether the type of palate repair affects the frequency of subsequent ventilation tube placement. Design: Combined retrospective and prospective cohort withmorethan2years clinical follow-up after palatoplasty. Setting: Tertiary care children's hospital and clinic. Patients: A total of 170 patients with cleft palate (with or without cleft lip) underwent palatoplasty between 1995 and 2003. Sixty-nine patients with less than 2 years of follow-up visits and 1 patient who did not require ear tubes were excluded from this analysis. Interventions: Either traditional 2-flap palatoplasty (group A) or double-opposing Z-plasty (group B) was performed. The type of palatoplasty performed was based on the reconstructive surgeon's clinical decision. Ventilation tubes were placed for otitis media, conductive hearing loss, or eustachian tube dysfunction. Patients received routine follow-up care every 6 months or whenever acute problems arose. Data were analyzed with independent t tests, χ2 tests, and Fisher exact tests. Main Outcome Measures: Number of ear tubes placed after palatoplasty in each group. Results: Group A had a mean (SE) of 2.9 (0.2) sets of tubes placed, while group B had a mean (SE) of 1.8 (0.2) sets of tubes. Group A had significantly more sets of ventilation tubes placed (P <.001) than group B. Subgroup analysis based on type of cleft was performed. Conclusion: Children with cleft palate who underwent double-opposing Z-plasty had fewer sets of ear tubes placed postoperatively than patients who had traditional repair.

AB - Objective: To determine whether the type of palate repair affects the frequency of subsequent ventilation tube placement. Design: Combined retrospective and prospective cohort withmorethan2years clinical follow-up after palatoplasty. Setting: Tertiary care children's hospital and clinic. Patients: A total of 170 patients with cleft palate (with or without cleft lip) underwent palatoplasty between 1995 and 2003. Sixty-nine patients with less than 2 years of follow-up visits and 1 patient who did not require ear tubes were excluded from this analysis. Interventions: Either traditional 2-flap palatoplasty (group A) or double-opposing Z-plasty (group B) was performed. The type of palatoplasty performed was based on the reconstructive surgeon's clinical decision. Ventilation tubes were placed for otitis media, conductive hearing loss, or eustachian tube dysfunction. Patients received routine follow-up care every 6 months or whenever acute problems arose. Data were analyzed with independent t tests, χ2 tests, and Fisher exact tests. Main Outcome Measures: Number of ear tubes placed after palatoplasty in each group. Results: Group A had a mean (SE) of 2.9 (0.2) sets of tubes placed, while group B had a mean (SE) of 1.8 (0.2) sets of tubes. Group A had significantly more sets of ventilation tubes placed (P <.001) than group B. Subgroup analysis based on type of cleft was performed. Conclusion: Children with cleft palate who underwent double-opposing Z-plasty had fewer sets of ear tubes placed postoperatively than patients who had traditional repair.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=54349114280&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=54349114280&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/archotol.134.10.1085

DO - 10.1001/archotol.134.10.1085

M3 - Article

C2 - 18936356

AN - SCOPUS:54349114280

VL - 134

SP - 1085

EP - 1089

JO - JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

JF - JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

SN - 2168-6181

IS - 10

ER -