Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018 Aug 1;144(8):686-693. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2018.0649.
Problems with speech in patients with facial paralysis are frequently noted by both clinicians and the patients themselves, but limited research exists describing how facial paralysis affects verbal communication.
To assess the influence of facial paralysis on communicative participation.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A nationwide online survey of 160 adults with unilateral facial paralysis was conducted from March 1 to June 1, 2017. To assess communicative participation, respondents completed the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) Short Form questionnaire and the Facial Clinimetric Evaluation (FaCE) Scale.
The CPIB Short Form and the correlation between the CPIB Short Form and FaCE Scale. In the CPIB, the level of interference in communication is rated on a 4-point Likert scale (where not at all = 3, a little = 2, quite a bit = 1, and very much = 0). Total scores for the 10 items range from 0 (worst) to 30 (best). The FaCE Scale is a 15-item instrument that produces an overall score ranging from 0 (worst) to 100 (best), with higher scores representing better function and higher quality of life.
Of the 160 respondents, 145 (90.6%) were women and 15 were men (mean [SD] age, 45.1 [12.6] years). Most respondents reported having facial paralysis for more than 3 years. Causes of facial paralysis included Bell palsy (86 [53.8%]), tumor (41 [25.6%]), and other causes (33 [20.6%]), including infection, trauma, congenital defects, and surgical complications. The mean (SD) score on the CPIB Short Form was 0.16 (0.88) logits (range, -2.58 to 2.10 logits). The mean (SD) score of the FaCE Scale was 40.92 (16.05) (range, 0-83.3). Significant correlations were observed between the CPIB Short Form and overall FaCE Scale scores, as well as the Social Function, Oral Function, Facial Comfort, and Eye Comfort subdomains of the FaCE Scale, but not with the Facial Movement subdomain.
Patients with facial paralysis in this study sample reported restrictions in communicative participation that were comparable with restrictions experienced by patients with other known communicative disorders, such as laryngectomy and head and neck cancer. We believe that communicative participation represents a unique domain of dysfunction and can help quantify the outcome of facial paralysis and provide an additional frame of reference when assessing treatment outcomes.
面瘫患者的言语问题经常被临床医生和患者自身注意到,但目前关于面瘫如何影响言语交流的研究有限。
评估面瘫对面部交流的影响。
设计、设置和参与者:2017 年 3 月 1 日至 6 月 1 日,对 160 名单侧面瘫成年人进行了一项全国性的在线调查。为了评估沟通参与度,受访者完成了沟通参与项目库(CPIB)简短形式问卷和面部临床计量评估(FaCE)量表。
CPIB 简短形式和 CPIB 简短形式与 FaCE 量表之间的相关性。在 CPIB 中,沟通干扰程度的评分是在 4 分李克特量表上进行的(一点也不=3,有点=2,相当多=1,非常多=0)。10 个项目的总分为 0(最差)至 30(最佳)。FaCE 量表是一个 15 项的工具,产生一个总分范围从 0(最差)到 100(最佳),分数越高代表功能越好,生活质量越高。
在 160 名受访者中,145 名(90.6%)为女性,15 名(9.4%)为男性(平均[标准差]年龄,45.1[12.6]岁)。大多数受访者报告面瘫时间超过 3 年。面瘫的原因包括贝尔麻痹(86 例[53.8%])、肿瘤(41 例[25.6%])和其他原因(33 例[20.6%]),包括感染、创伤、先天性缺陷和手术并发症。CPIB 简短形式的平均(标准差)得分为 0.16(0.88)对数(范围,-2.58 至 2.10 对数)。FaCE 量表的平均(标准差)得分为 40.92(16.05)(范围,0-83.3)。CPIB 简短形式与 FaCE 量表的总分以及 FaCE 量表的社交功能、口腔功能、面部舒适度和眼睛舒适度子域均呈显著相关性,但与面部运动子域无相关性。
本研究样本中的面瘫患者报告的交流参与受限与其他已知的交流障碍患者(如喉切除术和头颈部癌症)相似。我们认为,交流参与代表了一种独特的功能障碍领域,可以帮助量化面瘫的结果,并在评估治疗结果时提供另一个参考框架。