| 1. |
- Gamble, Carrol, et al.
(author)
-
Timing of Primary Surgery for Cleft Palate.
- 2023
-
In: The New England journal of medicine. - : Massachusetts Medical Society. - 1533-4406 .- 0028-4793. ; 389:9, s. 795-807
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Among infants with isolated cleft palate, whether primary surgery at 6 months of age is more beneficial than surgery at 12 months of age with respect to speech outcomes, hearing outcomes, dentofacial development, and safety is unknown.We randomly assigned infants with nonsyndromic isolated cleft palate, in a 1:1 ratio, to undergo standardized primary surgery at 6 months of age (6-month group) or at 12 months of age (12-month group) for closure of the cleft. Standardized assessments of quality-checked video and audio recordings at 1, 3, and 5 years of age were performed independently by speech and language therapists who were unaware of the trial-group assignments. The primary outcome was velopharyngeal insufficiency at 5 years of age, defined as a velopharyngeal composite summary score of at least 4 (scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater severity). Secondary outcomes included speech development, postoperative complications, hearing sensitivity, dentofacial development, and growth.We randomly assigned 558 infants at 23 centers across Europe and South America to undergo surgery at 6 months of age (281 infants) or at 12 months of age (277 infants). Speech recordings from 235 infants (83.6%) in the 6-month group and 226 (81.6%) in the 12-month group were analyzable. Insufficient velopharyngeal function at 5 years of age was observed in 21 of 235 infants (8.9%) in the 6-month group as compared with 34 of 226 (15.0%) in the 12-month group (risk ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.36 to 0.99; P=0.04). Postoperative complications were infrequent and similar in the 6-month and 12-month groups. Four serious adverse events were reported (three in the 6-month group and one in the 12-month group) and had resolved at follow-up.Medically fit infants who underwent primary surgery for isolated cleft palate in adequately resourced settings at 6 months of age were less likely to have velopharyngeal insufficiency at the age of 5 years than those who had surgery at 12 months of age. (Funded by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research; TOPS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00993551.).
|
|
| 2. |
- Lohmander, Anette, et al.
(author)
-
Scandcleft randomised trials of primary surgery for unilateral cleft lip and palate: 4. Speech outcomes in 5-year-olds - velopharyngeal competency and hypernasality
- 2017
-
In: Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery. - : TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD. - 2000-656X .- 2000-6764. ; 51:1, s. 27-37
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background and aim: Adequate velopharyngeal function and speech are main goals in the treatment of cleft palate. The objective was to investigate if there were differences in velopharyngeal competency (VPC) and hypernasality at age 5 years in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) operated on with different surgical methods for primary palatal repair. A secondary aim was to estimate burden of care in terms of received additional secondary surgeries and speech therapy. Design: Three parallel group, randomised clinical trials were undertaken as an international multicentre study by 10 cleft teams in five countries: Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the UK. Methods: Three different surgical protocols for primary palatal repair were tested against a common procedure in the total cohort of 448 children born with a non-syndromic UCLP. Speech audio and video recordings of 391 children (136 girls, 255 boys) were available and perceptually analysed. The main outcome measures were VPC and hypernasality from blinded assessments. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the prevalences in the arms in any of the trials. VPC: Trial 1, A: 58%, B: 61%; Trial 2, A: 57%, C: 54%; Trial 3, A: 35%, D: 51%. No hypernasality: Trial 1, A: 54%, B: 44%; Trial 2, A: 47%, C: 51%; Trial 3, A: 34%, D: 49%. Conclusions: No differences were found regarding VPC and hypernasality at age 5 years after different methods for primary palatal repair. The burden of care in terms of secondary pharyngeal surgeries, number of fistulae, and speech therapy visits differed.
|
|
| 3. |
- Semb, Gunvor, et al.
(author)
-
A Scandcleft randomised trials of primary surgery for unilateral cleft lip and palate: 1. Planning and management.
- 2017
-
In: Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery. - : Taylor & Francis. - 2000-656X .- 2000-6764. ; 51:1, s. 2-13
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Longstanding uncertainty surrounds the selection of surgical protocols for the closure of unilateral cleft lip and palate, and randomised trials have only rarely been performed. This paper is an introduction to three randomised trials of primary surgery for children born with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). It presents the protocol developed for the trials in CONSORT format, and describes the management structure that was developed to achieve the long-term engagement and commitment required to complete the project.METHOD: Ten established national or regional cleft centres participated. Lip and soft palate closure at 3-4 months, and hard palate closure at 12 months served as a common method in each trial. Trial 1 compared this with hard palate closure at 36 months. Trial 2 compared it with lip closure at 3-4 months and hard and soft palate closure at 12 months. Trial 3 compared it with lip and hard palate closure at 3-4 months and soft palate closure at 12 months. The primary outcomes were speech and dentofacial development, with a series of perioperative and longer-term secondary outcomes.RESULTS: Recruitment of 448 infants took place over a 9-year period, with 99.8% subsequent retention at 5 years.CONCLUSION: The series of reports that follow this introductory paper include comparisons at age 5 of surgical outcomes, speech outcomes, measures of dentofacial development and appearance, and parental satisfaction. The outcomes recorded and the numbers analysed for each outcome and time point are described in the series.TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN29932826.
|
|
| 4. |
- Willadsen, Elisabeth, et al.
(author)
-
Scandcleft randomised trials of primary surgery for unilateral cleft lip and palate: 5. Speech outcomes in 5-year-olds - consonant proficiency and errors
- 2017
-
In: Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery. - : TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD. - 2000-656X .- 2000-6764. ; 51:1, s. 38-51
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background and aim: Normal articulation before school start is a main objective in cleft palate treatment. The aim was to investigate if differences exist in consonant proficiency at age 5 years between children with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) randomised to different surgical protocols for primary palatal repair. A secondary aim was to estimate burden of care in terms of received additional secondary surgeries and speech therapy. Design: Three parallel group, randomised clinical trials were undertaken as an international multicentre study by 10 cleft teams in five countries: Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and the UK. Methods: Three different surgical protocols for primary palatal repair were tested against a common procedure in the total cohort of 448 children born with non-syndromic UCLP. Speech audio- and video-recordings of 391 children (136 girls and 255 boys) were available and transcribed phonetically. The main outcome measure was Percent Consonants Correct (PCC) from blinded assessments. Results: In Trial 1, arm A showed statistically significant higher PCC scores (82%) than arm B (78%) (p=.045). No significant differences were found between prevalences in Trial 2, A: 79%, C: 82%; or Trial 3, A: 80%, D: 85%. Across all trials, girls achieved better PCC scores, excluding s-errors, than boys (91.0% and 87.5%, respectively) (p=.01). Conclusions: PCC scores were higher in arm A than B in Trial 1, whereas no differences were found between arms in Trials 2 or 3. The burden of care in terms of secondary pharyngeal surgeries, number of fistulae, and speech therapy visits differed.
|
|
