MedElevator
Войти в исследования The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2018
An Intercenter Comparison of Nasolabial Appearance Including a Center Using Nasoalveolar Molding.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Peanchitlertkajorn Supakit, Mercado Ana, Daskalogiannakis John, Hathaway Ronald, Russell Kathleen, Semb Gunvor, Shaw William, Lamichane Manish, Cohen Marilyn, Long Ross E
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare nasolabial appearance outcomes of patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (CUCLP) in preadolescence from 4 cleft centers including a center using nasoalveolar molding (NAM) and primary nasal reconstruction.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SETTING: Four cleft centers in North America.
PATIENTS: 135 subjects with repaired CUCLP.
METHODS: Frontal and profile facial pictures were assessed using the Asher-McDade rating scale. Intra- and interrater reliability were tested using weighted Kappa statistics. Median scores by center were compared with Kruskal-Wallis statistics.
RESULTS: Intrarater reliability scores were moderate to good. Interrater reliability scores were moderate. Significant differences ( P < .05) among centers were found. For nasal form, center G (median = 2.83) had better scores than centers C and D (C median = 3.33, D median = 3.17). For nose symmetry, center G had better scores (median = 2.33) than all other centers (B median = 2.67, C median = 2.83, D median = 2.83). For vermillion border, center G had better scores (median = 2.58) than centers B and C (B median = 3.17, C median = 3.17). For nasolabial profile, center G (median score = 2.67) had better scores than center C (median = 3.00). For total nasolabial score, center G (median = 2.67) had better scores than all other centers (B median = 2.83, C median = 3, D median = 2.83).
CONCLUSION: The protocol followed by center G, the only center that performed NAM and primary nasal reconstruction, produced better results in all categories when compared to center C, the only center that did not perform presurgical orthopedics or lip/nose revisions. When compared to centers that performed traditional presurgical orthopedics and surgical revisions (B and D), center G was not consistently better in all categories. As with other uncontrolled, retrospective intercenter studies, it is not possible to attribute the outcomes to a specific protocol component.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SETTING: Four cleft centers in North America.
PATIENTS: 135 subjects with repaired CUCLP.
METHODS: Frontal and profile facial pictures were assessed using the Asher-McDade rating scale. Intra- and interrater reliability were tested using weighted Kappa statistics. Median scores by center were compared with Kruskal-Wallis statistics.
RESULTS: Intrarater reliability scores were moderate to good. Interrater reliability scores were moderate. Significant differences ( P < .05) among centers were found. For nasal form, center G (median = 2.83) had better scores than centers C and D (C median = 3.33, D median = 3.17). For nose symmetry, center G had better scores (median = 2.33) than all other centers (B median = 2.67, C median = 2.83, D median = 2.83). For vermillion border, center G had better scores (median = 2.58) than centers B and C (B median = 3.17, C median = 3.17). For nasolabial profile, center G (median score = 2.67) had better scores than center C (median = 3.00). For total nasolabial score, center G (median = 2.67) had better scores than all other centers (B median = 2.83, C median = 3, D median = 2.83).
CONCLUSION: The protocol followed by center G, the only center that performed NAM and primary nasal reconstruction, produced better results in all categories when compared to center C, the only center that did not perform presurgical orthopedics or lip/nose revisions. When compared to centers that performed traditional presurgical orthopedics and surgical revisions (B and D), center G was not consistently better in all categories. As with other uncontrolled, retrospective intercenter studies, it is not possible to attribute the outcomes to a specific protocol component.