Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Sep;124(9):2167-9.
doi: 10.1002/lary.24680. Epub 2014 May 7.

Transoral robotic-assisted laryngeal cleft repair in the pediatric patient

Affiliations

Transoral robotic-assisted laryngeal cleft repair in the pediatric patient

Rachel L Leonardis et al. Laryngoscope. 2014 Sep.

Abstract

Objectives/hypothesis: To assess the feasibility of performing robotic-assisted laryngeal cleft repair in the pediatric population.

Study design: Retrospective chart review at a tertiary academic children's hospital.

Methods: All patients underwent transoral robotic-assisted laryngeal cleft repair from March 2011 to June 2013. Demographics, robotic docking time, operative time, and postoperative course and swallowing function were collected and analyzed.

Results: Five children, three male and two female, underwent successful transoral robotic-assisted laryngeal cleft repair for closure of a type I laryngeal cleft. Mean age at time of surgery was 21.6 months (standard deviation 6.1 months; range, 15-29 months). From case 1 to case 5, robotic docking time (18-10 minutes), robotic operative time (102-36 minutes), and total operating room time (173-105 minutes) decreased. There were no complications with time until extubation (range, 2-3 days), length of intensive care unit stay (range, 3-4 days), and total hospital stay (range, 3-5 days) within acceptable range following laryngeal cleft repair. Modified barium swallow (two patients) or fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (three patients) was performed postoperatively, with all patients showing complete resolution of penetration and aspiration. In addition, all patients experienced subjective resolution of dysphagia and/or choking with feeds postoperatively.

Conclusions: Transoral robotic-assisted laryngeal cleft repair may offer specific advantages over a traditional endoscopic approach. In our experience, the procedure was well tolerated and associated with definitive surgical cure in all patients. The scope of robotic technology continually expands and should be considered a feasible tool at an institution-based level.

Keywords: Robotic; laryngeal cleft repair; pediatric robotics; transoral robotics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

Supplementary concepts

LinkOut - more resources