The Use of Fixed and Removable Bite Blocks in Bilateral Buccinator Flap Surgery for Velopharyngeal Insufficiency.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q2 Dentistry
Lucy Coull, Mary Bussell, Nefer Fallico
{"title":"The Use of Fixed and Removable Bite Blocks in Bilateral Buccinator Flap Surgery for Velopharyngeal Insufficiency.","authors":"Lucy Coull, Mary Bussell, Nefer Fallico","doi":"10.1177/10556656251314257","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To ascertain the current practice in the United Kingdom with regard to the use of bite blocks and the division of the pedicles in buccinator flap surgery for velopharyngeal insufficiency. To compare the outcomes of fixed and removable bite blocks in buccinator flap surgery, in terms of the incidence of pedicle injury and patient experience.</p><p><p>Survey of cleft surgeons in the United Kingdom on their use of bite blocks and division of the pedicles. Retrospective cohort review of consecutive patients that underwent buccinator flap surgery at Salisbury District Hospital between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022, comparing the use of fixed and removable bite blocks. Survey of patients who had bite blocks fitted to understand the patient and family experience.</p><p><p>Cleft consultants from the United Kingdom and Ireland responded: half (11 of 22) reported using bite blocks and half reported routinely dividing the pedicles, most commonly at 4 to 6 weeks after surgery. In our cohort (19 patients), fixed bite blocks had a higher incidence of pedicle injury (33%) and difficulty eating (78%) than removable bite blocks (20% and 20%, respectively). Generally, parents/patients tolerated the presence of bite blocks and were often unaware of pedicle injury, even in cases of repeated severe biting.</p><p><p>There is variation in the current use of bite blocks and pedicle division following buccinator flap surgery in the United Kingdom. In compliant patients, removable bite blocks may be associated with lower complication rates but neither fixed nor removable bite blocks compromise flap integrity.</p>","PeriodicalId":49220,"journal":{"name":"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal","volume":" ","pages":"10556656251314257"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656251314257","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To ascertain the current practice in the United Kingdom with regard to the use of bite blocks and the division of the pedicles in buccinator flap surgery for velopharyngeal insufficiency. To compare the outcomes of fixed and removable bite blocks in buccinator flap surgery, in terms of the incidence of pedicle injury and patient experience.

Survey of cleft surgeons in the United Kingdom on their use of bite blocks and division of the pedicles. Retrospective cohort review of consecutive patients that underwent buccinator flap surgery at Salisbury District Hospital between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022, comparing the use of fixed and removable bite blocks. Survey of patients who had bite blocks fitted to understand the patient and family experience.

Cleft consultants from the United Kingdom and Ireland responded: half (11 of 22) reported using bite blocks and half reported routinely dividing the pedicles, most commonly at 4 to 6 weeks after surgery. In our cohort (19 patients), fixed bite blocks had a higher incidence of pedicle injury (33%) and difficulty eating (78%) than removable bite blocks (20% and 20%, respectively). Generally, parents/patients tolerated the presence of bite blocks and were often unaware of pedicle injury, even in cases of repeated severe biting.

There is variation in the current use of bite blocks and pedicle division following buccinator flap surgery in the United Kingdom. In compliant patients, removable bite blocks may be associated with lower complication rates but neither fixed nor removable bite blocks compromise flap integrity.

固定和可移动咬块在双侧颊肌瓣手术治疗腭咽功能不全中的应用。
目的探讨目前英国在腭咽功能不全的颊肌瓣手术中使用咬合块和分割蒂的做法。比较固定牙块和可移动牙块在颊肌瓣手术中椎弓根损伤发生率和患者经验的差异。对英国唇腭裂外科医生使用咬合块和分割蒂的调查。对2021年1月1日至2022年12月31日在索尔兹伯里地区医院接受颊肌瓣手术的连续患者进行回顾性队列研究,比较固定和可移动咬合块的使用情况。调查已安装咬合块的患者,了解患者和家庭的经验。来自英国和爱尔兰的唇腭裂咨询师回应道:一半(22人中有11人)报告使用咬合块,一半报告常规分割蒂,最常见的是在手术后4到6周。在我们的队列(19例患者)中,固定咬合块的椎弓根损伤发生率(33%)和进食困难发生率(78%)高于可移动咬合块(分别为20%和20%)。一般来说,父母/患者能够忍受咬块的存在,即使在反复严重咬伤的情况下,也常常不知道蒂损伤。目前在英国,颊肌瓣手术后使用咬合块和椎弓根分割存在差异。在依从性患者中,可移动的咬合块可能与较低的并发症发生率相关,但固定和可移动的咬合块都不会损害皮瓣的完整性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal
Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-SURGERY
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
36.40%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal (CPCJ) is the premiere peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, international journal dedicated to current research on etiology, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in all areas pertaining to craniofacial anomalies. CPCJ reports on basic science and clinical research aimed at better elucidating the pathogenesis, pathology, and optimal methods of treatment of cleft and craniofacial anomalies. The journal strives to foster communication and cooperation among professionals from all specialties.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信