Neurology · 2019
Randomized controlled trial comparing botulinum vs surgery for drooling in neurodisabilities.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка 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.
Bekkers Stijn, Delsing Corinne P, Kok Saskia E, van Hulst Karen, Erasmus Corrie E, Scheffer Arthur R T, van den Hoogen Frank J A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of submandibular duct ligation (2-DL) and submandibular botulinum neurotoxin type A (BoNT-A) for drooling in children and adolescents with neurodevelopmental disabilities.
METHODS: A randomized, interventional, controlled, and partly single-blinded study was performed in which submandibular BoNT-A was compared with 2-DL to treat excessive drooling. Main outcomes included a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), drooling quotient (DQ), drooling severity (DS) scale and drooling frequency (DF) scale. Each was obtained at baseline, and 8 and 32 weeks post treatment.
RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients (mean age: 11 years, mean baseline VAS score 7.9, mean baseline DQ 27.3%) were randomized to the 2-DL or BoNT-A group. Four patients were excluded from analyses, leaving 53 patients for intention-to-treat analyses. Response to treatment, defined as a ≥50% reduction in DQ or VAS score, was higher for 2-DL after 32 weeks (63.0% vs 26.9%, p = 0.008). Both VAS score (24.5, p < 0.001) and DQ (-9.3%, p = 0.022) were significantly lower at follow-up after 2-DL vs BoNT-A. The total number of adverse events (p = 0.088, 40.7% vs 19.2%) and postoperative complaints was higher (p < 0.001, mean 9.6 vs 3.6 days) for 2-DL than for BoNT-A.
CONCLUSION: The 2-DL procedure is a more effective treatment for drooling than botulinum toxin, but carries a slightly greater risk of complications and morbidity.
TRIALREGISTERNL IDENTIFIER: NTR3537.
CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class III evidence that for children and adolescents with neurodevelopmental disabilities and severe drooling, 2-DL compared to a one-time intraglandular BoNT-A injection is more effective at reducing drooling at 32 weeks.
METHODS: A randomized, interventional, controlled, and partly single-blinded study was performed in which submandibular BoNT-A was compared with 2-DL to treat excessive drooling. Main outcomes included a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), drooling quotient (DQ), drooling severity (DS) scale and drooling frequency (DF) scale. Each was obtained at baseline, and 8 and 32 weeks post treatment.
RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients (mean age: 11 years, mean baseline VAS score 7.9, mean baseline DQ 27.3%) were randomized to the 2-DL or BoNT-A group. Four patients were excluded from analyses, leaving 53 patients for intention-to-treat analyses. Response to treatment, defined as a ≥50% reduction in DQ or VAS score, was higher for 2-DL after 32 weeks (63.0% vs 26.9%, p = 0.008). Both VAS score (24.5, p < 0.001) and DQ (-9.3%, p = 0.022) were significantly lower at follow-up after 2-DL vs BoNT-A. The total number of adverse events (p = 0.088, 40.7% vs 19.2%) and postoperative complaints was higher (p < 0.001, mean 9.6 vs 3.6 days) for 2-DL than for BoNT-A.
CONCLUSION: The 2-DL procedure is a more effective treatment for drooling than botulinum toxin, but carries a slightly greater risk of complications and morbidity.
TRIALREGISTERNL IDENTIFIER: NTR3537.
CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class III evidence that for children and adolescents with neurodevelopmental disabilities and severe drooling, 2-DL compared to a one-time intraglandular BoNT-A injection is more effective at reducing drooling at 32 weeks.