Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In this report, we discuss indications, technique, outcome, and complications of revision single-stage laryngotracheal reconstruction (SSLTR), formulate guidelines to avoid or prevent procedure failure, and establish a protocol for the management of procedure failure. We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 122 patients between the ages of 8 months and 9 years who underwent SSLTR between January 1992 and September 2001 in 2 tertiary care children's medical centers in different cities and assessed the outcomes of patients who underwent revision SSLTR. A total of 122 patients underwent SSLTR, of whom 48 patients underwent anterior and posterior grafting. Of the 122 patients, 13 had revision SSLTR; 8 of these 13 underwent the initial laryngotracheal reconstruction at another institution. Five patients had anterior grafting laryngotracheal reconstruction without stenting, 7 had anterior and posterior grafting with 1 to 21 days of endotracheal intubation, and I had cricotracheal resection and anastomosis. Of the 13 patients, 5 had anterior wall or graft collapse (grade IV stenosis), 4 had subglottic stenosis (grade IV), 2 had circumferential subglottic stenosis (grade III), and 2 had subglottic and glottic stenosis (grade IV). The overall success rate for all patients was 86% (105 of 122). The success rates for the 122 patients were as follows: anterior grafting, 100%; anterior and posterior grafting, 83% (40 of 48); and revision cases, 70% (9 of 13). We conclude that laryngotracheal reconstruction with a costal cartilage rib graft should be considered the procedure of choice for the management of subglottic stenosis. We believe that patients in whom the first procedure fails should have a high chance of success with revision SSLTR if strict guidelines and protocols are followed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Younis et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: