Suppr超能文献

斯堪的腭裂项目试验2——5岁单侧完全性唇腭裂患儿一期和二期腭裂修复术后语音结果比较

Scandcleft Project Trial 2-Comparison of Speech Outcome in 1- and 2-Stage Palatal Closure in 5-Year-Olds With UCLP.

作者信息

Hammarström Inger Lundeborg, Nyberg Jill, Alaluusua Suvi, Rautio Jorma, Neovius Erik, Berggren Anders, Persson Christina, Willadsen Elisabeth, Lohmander Anette

机构信息

Division of Speech and Language Pathology, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.

Stockholm Craniofacial Team, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.

出版信息

Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2020 Apr;57(4):458-469. doi: 10.1177/1055665619888316. Epub 2019 Nov 20.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To investigate in-depth speech results in the Scandcleft Trial 2 with comparisons between surgical protocols and centers and with benchmarks from peers without cleft palate.

DESIGN

A prospective randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

Two Swedish and one Finnish Cleft Palate center.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred twelve participants were 5-years-old born with unilateral cleft lip and palate randomized to either lip repair and soft palate closure at 4 months and hard palate closure at 12 months or lip repair at 3 to 4 months (Arm A), or a closure of both the soft and hard palate at 12 months (Arm C).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

A composite measure dichotomized into velopharyngeal competency (VPC) or velopharyngeal incompetency (VPI), overall assessment of velopharyngeal function (VPC-Rate), percentage of consonants correct (PCC score), and consonant errors. In addition, number of speech therapy visits, average hearing thresholds, and secondary surgeries were documented to assess burden of treatment.

RESULTS

Across the trial, 53.5% demonstrated VPC and 46.5% VPI with no significant differences between arms or centers. In total, 27% reached age-appropriate PCC scores with no statistically significant difference between the arms. The Finnish center had significantly higher PCC scores, the Swedish centers had higher percentages of oral consonant errors. Number of speech therapy visits was significantly higher in the Finnish center.

CONCLUSION

At age 5, poor speech outcomes with some differences between participating centers were seen but could not be attributed to surgical protocol. As one center had very few participants, the results from that center should be interpreted with caution.

摘要

目的

在腭裂试验2中深入研究语音结果,比较手术方案和中心之间的差异,并与无腭裂同龄人设定的基准进行比较。

设计

一项前瞻性随机临床试验。

地点

两个瑞典腭裂中心和一个芬兰腭裂中心。

参与者

112名5岁单侧唇腭裂患儿被随机分为两组,一组在4个月时进行唇修复和软腭闭合,12个月时进行硬腭闭合(A组);另一组在3至4个月时进行唇修复(A组),或在12个月时同时进行软腭和硬腭闭合(C组)。

主要观察指标

一项综合指标,分为腭咽功能正常(VPC)或腭咽功能不全(VPI)、腭咽功能的总体评估(VPC率)、辅音正确率(PCC评分)和辅音错误率。此外,记录言语治疗就诊次数、平均听力阈值和二次手术情况,以评估治疗负担。

结果

在整个试验中,53.5%的患儿表现为VPC,46.5%表现为VPI,两组或各中心之间无显著差异。总体而言,27%的患儿达到了适合年龄的PCC评分,两组之间无统计学显著差异。芬兰中心的PCC评分显著更高,瑞典中心的口腔辅音错误率更高。芬兰中心的言语治疗就诊次数显著更多。

结论

5岁时,患儿的语音结果较差,各参与中心之间存在一些差异,但不能归因于手术方案。由于其中一个中心的参与者很少,该中心的结果应谨慎解读。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验