Evaluation of parental and surgeon stressors and perceptions of distraction osteogenesis in pediatric craniofacial patients: a cross-sectional survey study

被引:2
作者
Zhang, Rosaline S. [1 ]
Lin, Lawrence O. [1 ]
Hoppe, Ian C. [1 ]
Wes, Ari M. [1 ]
Swanson, Jordan W. [1 ]
Bartlett, Scott P. [1 ]
Taylor, Jesse A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Penn, Childrens Hosp Philadelphia, Div Plast Surg, Colket Translat Res Bldg,9th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
关键词
Craniosynostosis; Surgery; Device; Infection; CRANIAL VAULT DISTRACTION; LE-FORT-III; BILATERAL MANDIBULAR DISTRACTION; COMPLICATIONS; DEFORMITIES; EXPANSION; OSTEOTOMY; EVOLUTION; SEQUENCE; CHILDREN;
D O I
10.1007/s00381-018-3827-5
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
There is a paucity of literature on how limitations of distraction osteogenesis (DO) are perceived by physicians and parents of pediatric patients. Specifically understanding which features of DO are most concerning to these two groups may better inform parent education, as well as direct improvements in distraction protocols and devices. Parents/guardians of patients (between January 2016 and October 2017) being treated with craniofacial distraction were recruited to complete a survey regarding level of stress (1 = not stressful, 9 = maximally stressful) associated with eight features of DO. Craniofacial surgeons completed a survey asking them to report (1) their personal level of stress and (2) their perceptions of parental stress regarding these same eight features of DO. Thirty-five parents and 15 craniofacial surgeons completed the survey. The risk of the device getting infected was perceived as most stressful by parents (5.5 +/- 2.3) followed by the device sticking through the skin (4.9 +/- 2.6) and the second operation for removal (4.7 +/- 2.3). These same three features also elicited the highest level of stress among surgeons. Surgeon-perceived parental stress regarding turning of the distractor (5.8 +/- 1.5) was significantly higher than parent self-reported stress (4.2 +/- 2.8, p = 0.042). Both parents and surgeons perceive risk of device-associated infection, the protrusion of the device through the skin, and the requirement of a second operation for removal as the most stressful drawbacks of distraction. Infection reduction protocols, less obtrusive devices, and devices that do not require removal are potential targets for stress reduction.
引用
收藏
页码:1735 / 1743
页数:9
相关论文
共 33 条
  • [1] Mandibular elongation by automatic distraction osteogenesis: The first application in humans
    Ayoub, AF
    Richardson, W
    Barbenel, JC
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2005, 43 (04) : 324 - 328
  • [2] Patient discomfort and other side effects after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy or distraction osteogenesis of the mandible: a randomized clinical trial
    Baas, E. M.
    van Gemert, B. P. H. M.
    Bierenbroodspot, F.
    Milstein, D. M. J.
    de Lange, J.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2015, 44 (09) : 1119 - 1124
  • [3] Family-centred care during midface advancement with a rigid external device: What do families need?
    Bredero-Boelhouwer, H.
    Joosten, K. F. M.
    van Veen-van der Hoek, M.
    Mathijssen, I. M. J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PLASTIC RECONSTRUCTIVE AND AESTHETIC SURGERY, 2013, 66 (08) : 1103 - 1108
  • [4] Bioresorbable distraction device for the treatment of airway problems for infants with Robin sequence
    Breugem, Corstiaan
    Paes, Emma
    Kon, Moshe
    van der Molen, Aebele B. Mink
    [J]. CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2012, 16 (04) : 1325 - 1331
  • [5] Burstein FD, 2005, PLAST RECONSTR SURG, V115, P61, DOI 10.1097/01.PRS.0000145794.01442.64
  • [6] Distraction osteogenesis of the cranial vault for the treatment of craniofacial synostosis
    Cho, BC
    Hwang, SK
    Uhm, KI
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY, 2004, 15 (01) : 135 - 144
  • [7] Internal Le Fort III distraction with biodegradable devices
    Cohen, SR
    Holmes, RE
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY, 2001, 12 (03) : 264 - 272
  • [8] The Evolution of Mandibular Distraction: Device Selection
    Davidson, Edward H.
    Brown, Daniel
    Shetye, Pradip R.
    Greig, Aina V. H.
    Grayson, Barry H.
    Warren, Stephen M.
    McCarthy, Joseph G.
    [J]. PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2010, 126 (06) : 2061 - 2070
  • [9] Distraction osteogenesis in Pierre Robin neonates with airway obstruction
    Denny, AD
    [J]. CLINICS IN PLASTIC SURGERY, 2004, 31 (02) : 221 - +
  • [10] Mandibular distraction osteogenesis in very young patients to correct airway obstruction
    Denny, AD
    Talisman, R
    Hanson, PR
    Recinos, RF
    [J]. PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2001, 108 (02) : 302 - 311