4.2 Article

Airway obstruction in children with cerebral palsy: Need for tracheostomy?

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.07.017

关键词

Adenotonsillectomy; Cerebral palsy; Neuromuscular hypotonia; Obstructive sleep apnea; Tracheostomy; Upper airway obstruction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To examine the progress of the airway obstruction over time in children with cerebral palsy (CP) and the timing of any interventions. Methods: The medical notes of patients with CP younger than 16 years admitted with airway obstruction to a tertiary referral Pediatric Otolaryngology Center from 2006 to 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. The gender, age of referral, co-morbidities, type of surgical intervention and age this was performed and the time interval between sequential surgeries were documented. Results: Fifteen children with CF and airway obstruction were admitted, eight boys and seven girls with an average age of referral 8 years (range 3-13.3 years). Adenotonsillectomy was performed in 11/15 patients at a mean age of 9.1 years (range 4.5-14 years). Tracheostomy was performed in 8/15 children at an average age of 11.6 years (range 7.5-15 years). Seven out of 11 patients having undergone adenotonsillectomy, required tracheostomy after an average time interval of 1.9 years (range 0.5-3.5 years). Tracheostomy was performed in 80% of referred patients with CP older than 10 years, while surgical intervention was uncommon in children younger than 5 years. There was a statistically significant correlation between the age of the children and the performance of a tracheostomy (Pearson's correlation coefficient 0.68, p = 0.005). Conclusions: The severity of the airway obstruction in children with CP tends to increase with age. We postulate that this increase results from worsening hypotonia of pharyngeal musculature. Children with CP and severe upper airway obstruction are likely to require tracheostomy as they grow older. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据