ArticleEplasty2025
Intensive Care Unit Admission Following Cleft Palate Repair in Patients With Pierre Robin Sequence Corrected With Mandibular Distraction.
Article in Eplasty, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with Pierre Robin Sequence (PRS) treated with mandibular distraction (MD) frequently suffer from a cleft palate (CP). There are no standard practices surrounding the need for admission to a pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) following CP repair in these patients. This study will investigate the frequency of airway events following CP repair in this subset of patients. Methods: A retrospective chart review of all patients with PRS treated with MD that also required CP repair surgery at the authors' institution from 2012 to 2022 was performed. Intraoperative and postoperative analgesic usage, preoperative and postoperative respiratory status, presence of a concomitant operation, comorbid anomalies, as well as age and weight at CP repair were recorded. Our primary outcomes included length of stay following CP repair, presence of airway events perioperatively/postoperatively, and admission status following CP repair. Results: Twenty-nine patients underwent MD during this period, of which 13 patients also underwent repair of a CP. The average length of stay following CP repair was 2.3 days. Only 2 airway events were noted, and only 3 patients were admitted to the PICU following repair. Presence of comorbid musculoskeletal and neurologic abnormalities was associated with postoperative PICU admission.Remaining intubated following CP repair was associated with increased analgesic usage intraoperatively. A longer duration of intubation following MD was associated with PICU admission and remaining intubated following CP repair. Conclusions: Overall, it appears that admission to the floor following CP repair in PRS patients with a history of MD is generally safe.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40661086PMC12257970What 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.