Cargando…

Risk Factors for Failure of Hard Palate Mucoperiosteal Flap Repair of Acquired Oronasal Communication in Dogs: A Pilot Study

The objective of this retrospective pilot study was to describe potential risk factors for failure of hard palate mucoperiosteal flaps (HPF) transposed for closure of oronasal communication. Dogs (n = 28) with acquired oronasal communication defects were included in the study population. Functional...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Taney, Kendall, Smith, Mark M., Cummings, Nathan P., Lozano, Alicia J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8595595/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34805341
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.762842
_version_ 1784600214565289984
author Taney, Kendall
Smith, Mark M.
Cummings, Nathan P.
Lozano, Alicia J.
author_facet Taney, Kendall
Smith, Mark M.
Cummings, Nathan P.
Lozano, Alicia J.
author_sort Taney, Kendall
collection PubMed
description The objective of this retrospective pilot study was to describe potential risk factors for failure of hard palate mucoperiosteal flaps (HPF) transposed for closure of oronasal communication. Dogs (n = 28) with acquired oronasal communication defects were included in the study population. Functional success of an HPF was determined by visual inspection at the last examination and lack of clinical signs. Risk factors for HPF failure including age, sex, body weight, presence of neoplasia at the time of surgery, presence of neoplasia after surgery due to incomplete or narrow margins, use of CO(2) laser, previous surgeries in the same location, HPF blood supply, size of the HPF as a percentage of the total area of the hard palate mucoperiosteum, and distance traveled by the apex of the HPF were evaluated using descriptive statistics and unadjusted logistic regression modeling. Seven out of 28 (25%) hard palate flap procedures resulted in persistent oronasal communication and were considered failures. Body weight (Median: 17 vs. 25 kg, OR = 0.94, 80% CI = 0.90, 0.99), presence of neoplasia at the time of surgery (86 vs. 57%, OR = 4.50, 80% CI = 1.01, 20.06), HPF area (Median: 0.49 vs. 0.41, OR = 84.40, 80% CI = 1.66, 4,298) and apex travel distance (Median: 2.06 vs. 0.67, OR = 5.15, 80% CI = 2.14, 12.38) were associated with flap failure. Within this sample, the presence of neoplasia at the time of initial surgery, increasing the area of the HPF, and distance traveled by the HPF apex were associated with a greater odds of HPF failure. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm repeatability of these results. HPFs remain a viable surgical option for closure of oronasal communication. Careful surgical planning, strict adherence to surgical principles, and awareness of anatomical limitations can increase the likelihood of success.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8595595
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85955952021-11-18 Risk Factors for Failure of Hard Palate Mucoperiosteal Flap Repair of Acquired Oronasal Communication in Dogs: A Pilot Study Taney, Kendall Smith, Mark M. Cummings, Nathan P. Lozano, Alicia J. Front Vet Sci Veterinary Science The objective of this retrospective pilot study was to describe potential risk factors for failure of hard palate mucoperiosteal flaps (HPF) transposed for closure of oronasal communication. Dogs (n = 28) with acquired oronasal communication defects were included in the study population. Functional success of an HPF was determined by visual inspection at the last examination and lack of clinical signs. Risk factors for HPF failure including age, sex, body weight, presence of neoplasia at the time of surgery, presence of neoplasia after surgery due to incomplete or narrow margins, use of CO(2) laser, previous surgeries in the same location, HPF blood supply, size of the HPF as a percentage of the total area of the hard palate mucoperiosteum, and distance traveled by the apex of the HPF were evaluated using descriptive statistics and unadjusted logistic regression modeling. Seven out of 28 (25%) hard palate flap procedures resulted in persistent oronasal communication and were considered failures. Body weight (Median: 17 vs. 25 kg, OR = 0.94, 80% CI = 0.90, 0.99), presence of neoplasia at the time of surgery (86 vs. 57%, OR = 4.50, 80% CI = 1.01, 20.06), HPF area (Median: 0.49 vs. 0.41, OR = 84.40, 80% CI = 1.66, 4,298) and apex travel distance (Median: 2.06 vs. 0.67, OR = 5.15, 80% CI = 2.14, 12.38) were associated with flap failure. Within this sample, the presence of neoplasia at the time of initial surgery, increasing the area of the HPF, and distance traveled by the HPF apex were associated with a greater odds of HPF failure. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm repeatability of these results. HPFs remain a viable surgical option for closure of oronasal communication. Careful surgical planning, strict adherence to surgical principles, and awareness of anatomical limitations can increase the likelihood of success. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-11-03 /pmc/articles/PMC8595595/ /pubmed/34805341 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.762842 Text en Copyright © 2021 Taney, Smith, Cummings and Lozano. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Veterinary Science
Taney, Kendall
Smith, Mark M.
Cummings, Nathan P.
Lozano, Alicia J.
Risk Factors for Failure of Hard Palate Mucoperiosteal Flap Repair of Acquired Oronasal Communication in Dogs: A Pilot Study
title Risk Factors for Failure of Hard Palate Mucoperiosteal Flap Repair of Acquired Oronasal Communication in Dogs: A Pilot Study
title_full Risk Factors for Failure of Hard Palate Mucoperiosteal Flap Repair of Acquired Oronasal Communication in Dogs: A Pilot Study
title_fullStr Risk Factors for Failure of Hard Palate Mucoperiosteal Flap Repair of Acquired Oronasal Communication in Dogs: A Pilot Study
title_full_unstemmed Risk Factors for Failure of Hard Palate Mucoperiosteal Flap Repair of Acquired Oronasal Communication in Dogs: A Pilot Study
title_short Risk Factors for Failure of Hard Palate Mucoperiosteal Flap Repair of Acquired Oronasal Communication in Dogs: A Pilot Study
title_sort risk factors for failure of hard palate mucoperiosteal flap repair of acquired oronasal communication in dogs: a pilot study
topic Veterinary Science
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8595595/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34805341
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.762842
work_keys_str_mv AT taneykendall riskfactorsforfailureofhardpalatemucoperiostealflaprepairofacquiredoronasalcommunicationindogsapilotstudy
AT smithmarkm riskfactorsforfailureofhardpalatemucoperiostealflaprepairofacquiredoronasalcommunicationindogsapilotstudy
AT cummingsnathanp riskfactorsforfailureofhardpalatemucoperiostealflaprepairofacquiredoronasalcommunicationindogsapilotstudy
AT lozanoaliciaj riskfactorsforfailureofhardpalatemucoperiostealflaprepairofacquiredoronasalcommunicationindogsapilotstudy