Orthopedics Research - Chronic Injuries, Muscoskeletal Disorders, Surgery, Reconstruction

Orthopedics Research Today is a free monthly online journal that collates and summarizes the latest research about Orthopedics, including details on chronic injuries, muscoskeletal disorders, surgery, reconstruction.


Orthopedics Research Today

Home

View Latest Issue

Information About Orthopedics

Books on Orthopedics

Advertising in Research Today

View Other Research Today Publications



A multicenter outcomes assessment of five-year-old patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate.

Flinn W, Long RE, Garattini G, Semb G

Lancaster Cleft Palate Clinic, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602, USA.

OBJECTIVE: Compare 5-year-old dental arch relationships of patients from three centers with differing primary protocols. DESIGN: Retrospective study of treatment outcomes using blinded evaluation of dental study casts. SETTING: Three major cleft-craniofacial centers; one (center A) is a free-standing institution, and two (centers B and C) are university hospitals. PATIENTS: 118 (A = 41; B = 33; C = 44) consecutively treated 5-year-old patients with complete, nonsyndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate. INTERVENTIONS: Centers A and C completed primary repair without presurgical orthopedics by 18 months (center A in three surgeries and center C in two surgeries). Center B used passive presurgical orthopedics with lip/soft palate repair at 6 months and gingivo-alveoloplasty/hard palate repair at 18 to 36 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Averaged ratings of dental casts using the 5-year yardstick were computed for each patient. The Wilcoxon two-sample test was used to compare means; a chi-square test was used to compare distributions. RESULTS: Intra- and interexaminer reliability tests showed excellent reliability (>.90). Mean scores were not significantly different. Distribution of scores differed significantly. Center A had the highest percentage of good scores and the lowest percentage of poor scores (72% versus 6.5%), followed by center B (63% versus 6.6%) and center C (59% versus 16.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Centers A and B had comparable scores and completely different protocols in surgical technique, timing, sequencing, and nonuse/use of appliances. Center C's results were slightly lower than those of 1 and 3, but the center had the protocol with the least burden of treatment (only two surgeries, without use of appliances).

Published 9 May 2006 in Cleft Palate Craniofac J, 43(3): 253-8.
Full-text of this article is available online (may require subscription).

Place a permanent text-link or advertisement here for just US$15.

© 2005-2008 Orthopedics Research Today. All Rights Reserved.



Orthopedics Research Today Archive:

Volume 1 (2005)
  Issue 1 (June)
  Issue 2 (July)
  Issue 3 (August)
  Issue 4 (September)
  Issue 5 (October)
  Issue 6 (November)
  Issue 7 (December)

Volume 2 (2006)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)
  Issue 8 (August)
  Issue 9 (September)
  Issue 10 (October)
  Issue 11 (November)
  Issue 12 (December)

Volume 3 (2007)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)
  Issue 8 (August)
  Issue 9 (September)
  Issue 10 (October)
  Issue 11 (November)
  Issue 12 (December)

Volume 4 (2008)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)



Orthopedics Books

The Orthopaedic Intern Pocket Survival Guide

The Orthopaedic Intern Pocket Survival Guide