The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2010
Speech results after one-stage palatoplasty with or without muscle reconstruction for isolated cleft palate.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Nyberg Jill, Westberg Liisi Raud, Neovius Erik, Larson Ola, Henningsson Gunilla
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To investigate speech outcome between children with isolated cleft palate undergoing palatoplasty with and without muscle reconstruction and to compare speech outcomes between cleft and non cleft children. The number of subsequent velopharyngeal flaps was compared with respect to surgical techniques and cleft extent.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional retrospective study.
PARTICIPANTS: One hundred four children aged 4 years, 0 months to 6 years, 0 months, 33 with isolated cleft of the soft palate, 53 with isolated cleft of the hard and soft palate, and 18 non cleft children.
INTERVENTIONS: Two primary palate repair techniques: minimal incision technique (MIT) and minimal incision technique including muscle reconstruction (MIT(mr)).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Perceptual judgment of seven speech parameters assessed on a five-point scale.
RESULTS: No significant differences in speech outcomes were found between MIT and MIT(mr) surgery groups. The number of velopharyngeal flaps was significantly lower after MIT(mr) surgery compared to MIT surgery. The number of flaps was also significantly lower in children with cleft of the soft palate compared to children with cleft of the hard and soft palate. Children with cleft of the soft palate had significantly less glottal articulation and weak pressure consonants compared to children with cleft of the hard and soft palate.
CONCLUSIONS: The MIT(mr) surgery technique was not significantly superior to the MIT technique regarding speech outcomes related to velopharyngeal competence, but had fewer velopharyngeal flaps, which is contradictory. Until a larger sample can be studied, we will continue to use MIT(mr) for primary palate repair.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional retrospective study.
PARTICIPANTS: One hundred four children aged 4 years, 0 months to 6 years, 0 months, 33 with isolated cleft of the soft palate, 53 with isolated cleft of the hard and soft palate, and 18 non cleft children.
INTERVENTIONS: Two primary palate repair techniques: minimal incision technique (MIT) and minimal incision technique including muscle reconstruction (MIT(mr)).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Perceptual judgment of seven speech parameters assessed on a five-point scale.
RESULTS: No significant differences in speech outcomes were found between MIT and MIT(mr) surgery groups. The number of velopharyngeal flaps was significantly lower after MIT(mr) surgery compared to MIT surgery. The number of flaps was also significantly lower in children with cleft of the soft palate compared to children with cleft of the hard and soft palate. Children with cleft of the soft palate had significantly less glottal articulation and weak pressure consonants compared to children with cleft of the hard and soft palate.
CONCLUSIONS: The MIT(mr) surgery technique was not significantly superior to the MIT technique regarding speech outcomes related to velopharyngeal competence, but had fewer velopharyngeal flaps, which is contradictory. Until a larger sample can be studied, we will continue to use MIT(mr) for primary palate repair.