For Patients With Isolated Cleft Palate Does Revision Palatoplasty Have an Increased Risk of Inpatient Complication Compared to Primary Palatal Repair?

Abstract

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to determine whether revision palatoplasty was associated with increased rates of inpatient complication and wound dehiscence compared to primary palatal repair.

Materials and Methods:

This was a retrospective study of patients with isolated cleft palate treated with primary palatoplasty or revision surgery for fistula repair. The records were obtained from the Kids’ Inpatient Database between 2000 and 2014. The primary predictor was the type of surgery, classified as either primary or revision palatoplasty. Secondary predictors included demographics and comorbidities. Primary study outcomes were the postoperative complication and dehiscence rates as noted during the hospitalization course. The secondary outcomes related to health care utilization as measured through length of stay (LOS) and hospital charges.

Results:

A total of 5357 total admissions (95.5% primary, 4.5% revision) were included in the final sample. Fistula repairs (odds ratio = 14.37, P < .01) had significantly greater odds of wound dehiscence. The rates of inpatient complication ranged from 3.5% to 3.7%, and there were no significant differences between primary and revision surgery (P = .82). Complications were independently associated with insurance status and congenital anomalies. Complications and wound dehiscence both significantly increased the LOS and the hospital charges. Fistula repairs had a shorter mean LOS (P = .02), however this did not translate into cost savings (P = .60).

Conclusions:

Although the rates of inpatient complications were not significantly different, revision palatoplasty was associated with a greater odds of wound dehiscence. Failure of a primary repair may portend an increased risk of wound failure with subsequent surgeries.