The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2013
Influence of objective three-dimensional measures and movement images on surgeon treatment planning for lip revision surgery.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Trotman Carroll-Ann, Phillips Ceib, Faraway Julian J, Hartman Terry, van Aalst John A
Аннотация
Objective : To determine whether a systematic evaluation of facial soft tissues of patients with cleft lip and palate, using facial video images and objective three-dimensional measurements of movement, change surgeons' treatment plans for lip revision surgery. Design : Prospective longitudinal study. Setting : The University of North Carolina School of Dentistry. Patients, Participants : A group of patients with repaired cleft lip and palate (n = 21), a noncleft control group (n = 37), and surgeons experienced in cleft care. Interventions : Lip revision. Main Outcome Measures : (1) facial photographic images; (2) facial video images during animations; (3) objective three-dimensional measurements of upper lip movement based on z scores; and (4) objective dynamic and visual three-dimensional measurement of facial soft tissue movement. Results : With the use of the video images plus objective three-dimensional measures, the operating surgeon changed the problem list of the surgical treatment plan for 86% of the patients (95% confidence interval, 0.64 to 0.97) and the surgical goals for 71% of the patients (95% confidence interval, 0.48 to 0.89). The surgeon group varied in the percentage of patients for whom the problem list was modified, ranging from 24% (95% confidence interval, 8% to 47%) to 48% (95% confidence interval, 26% to 70%) of patients, and the percentage for whom the surgical goals were modified, ranging from 14% (94% confidence interval, 3% to 36%) to 48% (95% confidence interval, 26% to 70%) of patients. Conclusions : For all surgeons, the additional assessment components of the systematic valuation resulted in a change in clinical decision making for some patients.