4.2 Article

Cleft Patient-Reported Postoperative Donor Site Pain Following Alveolar Autologous Iliac Crest Bone Grafting: Comparing Two Minimally Invasive Harvesting Techniques

Journal

JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY
Volume 26, Issue 7, Pages 2099-2103

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000002077

Keywords

Alveolar cleft repair; cleft lip and palate; donor site; iliac crest bone; pain

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background:Autologous bone grafting is still considered the standard method for alveolar cleft repair. However, donor site morbidities remain a relevant problem in cleft care. Thus, the authors assessed postoperative donor site pain in cleft patients who underwent alveolar cleft repair by iliac crest bone graft transferring through a prospective randomized study comparing 2 minimally invasive harvesting techniques.Methods:Fifty-six consecutive patients with cleft lip and palate who underwent iliac crest bone grafting for alveolar cleft repair were randomly divided into 2 groups: bone graft harvested by minimally invasive techniques without (group 1) and with (group 2) periosteum elevation. Postoperative donor site pain was evaluated using a unidimensional numerical pain intensity rating scale (0, no pain; 10, worst pain imaginable) at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 hours after the procedures and on the 3rd, 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th days after surgeries. Intergroup comparisons were performed.Results:The mean measurements of donor site pain revealed no significant differences (all P>0.05) in any of the evaluated postoperative period comparisons between groups 1 and 2. There was a greater number (P<0.05) of group 1 patients who reported no pain in the donor site compared with group 2, suggesting that periosteum elevation may play a role in pain intensity measurement.Conclusions:This prospective randomized study showed no difference in pain intensity among cleft patients who had postoperative pain. However, a greater number of patients in group 1 reported no pain in comparison to patients in group 2.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available