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

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorTaney, Kendallen
dc.contributor.authorSmith, Mark M.en
dc.contributor.authorCummings, Nathan P.en
dc.contributor.authorLozano, Alicia J.en
dc.date.accessioned2021-12-14T14:07:55Zen
dc.date.available2021-12-14T14:07:55Zen
dc.date.issued2021-11-03en
dc.description.abstractThe 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 CO2 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.en
dc.description.notesFunding Research reported in this publication was supported in part by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number UL1TR003015.en
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of HealthUnited States Department of Health & Human ServicesNational Institutes of Health (NIH) - USANIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) [UL1TR003015]en
dc.description.versionPublished versionen
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.762842en
dc.identifier.eissn2297-1769en
dc.identifier.other762842en
dc.identifier.pmid34805341en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/106966en
dc.identifier.volume8en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 Internationalen
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en
dc.subjectpalateen
dc.subjectoralen
dc.subjectmaxillofacialen
dc.subjectflapen
dc.subjectsurgeryen
dc.subjectoncologyen
dc.subjectdogen
dc.subjectfistulaen
dc.titleRisk Factors for Failure of Hard Palate Mucoperiosteal Flap Repair of Acquired Oronasal Communication in Dogs: A Pilot Studyen
dc.title.serialFrontiers in Veterinary Scienceen
dc.typeArticle - Refereeden
dc.type.dcmitypeTexten

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
fvets-08-762842.pdf
Size:
1.96 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Published version
Download

Collections

Scholarly Works, Center for Biostatistics and Health Data Science