4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

The effect of glossopexy on weight velocity in infants with Pierre Robin syndrome

Journal

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY
Volume 43, Issue 2, Pages 296-298

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2007.10.015

Keywords

congenital micrognathia; dysphagia; failure to thrive; catch-up growth; tongue-lip adhesion

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: In infants with Pierre Robin syndrome (PRS), mandibular distraction may be more advantageous than glossopexy as it not only relieves oropharyngeal airway obstruction but also reverses body growth retardation. Because no data are available on body weight velocity after glossopexy, we assessed longitudinally the body weight velocity in a cohort of children undergoing glossopexy. Methods: The records of 48 infants with PRS undergoing glossopexy after unsuccessful nonoperative treatment between 1981 and 2005 were reviewed. Weight measurements were analyzed at 4 time-points: at birth, on admission for glossopexy, on admission for lysis of lip-tongue adhesion (TLA), and at follow-up. Weight velocity was assessed using Tanner's tables. Main Results: Adhesion dehiscence occurred in 9 patients (18.7%). Lip-tongue adhesion resolved airway compromise in 36 infants (75%). Release of TLA was accomplished in 34 patients. Data on weight velocity from birth to follow-up (mean, 5.57 +/- 0.59 years) were available for 31 patients. After glossopexy, mean body weight increased from the 9.7 +/- 2.6th to the 17.5 +/- 4.6th percentile (P >.05), whereas mean weight velocity increased from the 19.1 +/- 4.9th to the 74.2 +/- 4.7th percentile (P <.001). No temporal correlation was found between glossopexy and oropharyngeal dysphagia. Conclusion: In infants with PRS, glossopexy is a valid alternative to mandibular distraction because it does not cause decline in body growth. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available