Unsuccessful submandibular duct surgery for anterior drooling: Surgical failure or parotid gland salivation?
Fulltext:
207112.pdf
Embargo:
until further notice
Size:
458.2Kb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Publisher’s version
Publication year
2019Source
International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 123, (2019), pp. 132-137ISSN
Publication type
Article / Letter to editor
Display more detailsDisplay less details
Organization
Otorhinolaryngology
Rehabilitation
Neurology
Paediatrics
Journal title
International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology
Volume
vol. 123
Page start
p. 132
Page end
p. 137
Subject
Radboudumc 0: Other Research DCMN: Donders Center for Medical Neuroscience; Radboudumc 10: Reconstructive and regenerative medicine RIHS: Radboud Institute for Health Sciences; Radboudumc 3: Disorders of movement DCMN: Donders Center for Medical Neuroscience; Radboudumc 9: Rare cancers RIHS: Radboud Institute for Health Sciences; Neurology - Radboud University Medical Center; Otorhinolaryngology - Radboud University Medical Center; Paediatrics - Radboud University Medical Center; Rehabilitation - Radboud University Medical CenterAbstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate if drooling recurrence after surgery of the submandibular ducts is due to surgical failure or other variables. METHODS: Historic cohort with prospective collected data of all patients with severe drooling who underwent unsuccessful submandibular duct surgery with subsequent re-intervention between 2003 and 2018. A reference cohort was used for comparison of clinical variables. RESULTS: Six males and 4 females were included (cerebral palsy n=8, neurodevelopmental disorders n=2). All patients underwent submandibular gland surgery as a primary intervention (duct ligation n=8, submandibular duct relocation n=2) followed by re-intervention (submandibular gland excision n=7, parotid duct ligation n=3). One patient underwent tertiary surgery (parotid duct ligation after re-intervention by submandibular gland excision). Three patients were successful after re-intervention. No difference was found between both re-intervention techniques. There was significantly more severe dental malocclusion (50% vs. 21%, P value=0.047) and severe speech disorders (80% vs. 42%, P value=0.042) in the current cohort when compared to the reference cohort. CONCLUSION: Recurrence of drooling surgery is most likely not caused by surgical failure of the primary intervention, because re-intervention (submandibular gland excision) did not lead to more success. Dysarthria and dental malocclusion might negatively influence treatment outcome.
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
- Academic publications [242560]
- Electronic publications [129511]
- Faculty of Medical Sciences [92283]
Upload full text
Use your RU credentials (u/z-number and password) to log in with SURFconext to upload a file for processing by the repository team.