ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2020
Efficacy and Safety in Combining Primary Palatoplasty and Myringotomy in Patients with Cleft Palate.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients born with a cleft lip and palate undergo multiple surgical procedures, increasing the infants' exposure to anesthesia and potential risk of neurocognitive delays. In addition, these numerous procedures lead to greater use of hospital resources. This study analyzes the differences in anesthetic exposure and perioperative characteristics between performing combined versus separate primary palatoplasty (PP) and placement of bilateral myringotomy tubes (BMT).
methodsWe reviewed patients younger than 2 years who underwent PP and BMT at our institution from June 2014 to January 2019. Patients who underwent PP and BMT during the same admission (combined group = 74) and during separate admissions (separate group = 26) were studied. Due to the small sample size in the separate group, additional data for this group were gathered by propensity score matching by gender, race, and American Society of Anesthesiology class. Statistical analyses were carried out to identify significant differences between the 2 groups. Linear regression was performed to compare perioperative variables.
resultsOne hundred patients met the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in demographic characteristics or American Society of Anesthesiology class, surgery and anesthesia duration, dosage of intraoperative dexmedetomidine, hospital length of stay, and perioperative complications (
conclusionsThis study documents decreased postoperative care unit time and anesthesia drug exposure without increased length of stay or perioperative complications in patients undergoing combined PP and BMT. These results support combining PP and BMT to reduce exposure to potentially neurotoxic medications and to increase efficient utilization of hospital resources.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.