Timing of Primary Surgery for Cleft Palate.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.).

Inter-rater reliability in classification of canonical babbling status based on canonical babbling ratio in infants with isolated cleft palate randomised to Timing of Primary Surgery for Cleft Palate (TOPS).

Canonical babbling (CB) is commonly defined as present when at least 15% of all syllables produced are canonical, in other words a canonical babbling ratio (CBR) ≥0.15. However, there is limited knowledge about inter-rater reliability in classification of CB status based on CBR and inter-rater differences in assessment of CBR. We investigated inter-rater reliability of experienced Speech Language Therapists (SLTs) on: classification of CB status based on CBR ≥ 0.15, CBRs and the total number of syllables per infant used to calculate CBR.Each infant (n = 484) was video-recorded at a clinical site in play interaction with their parent as part of the randomised controlled trial Timing of Primary Surgery for Cleft Palate. Each recording was subsequently assessed by three independent SLTs, from a pool of 29 SLTs. They assessed the recordings in real time.The three assessing SLTs agreed in classification of CB status in 423 (87.4%) infants, with higher complete agreement for canonical (91%; 326/358) than non-canonical (77%; 97/126). The average difference in CBR and total number of syllables identified between the SLT assessments of each infant was 0.12 and 95, respectively.This study provided new evidence that one trained SLT can reliably classify CB status (CBR ≥ 0.15) in real time when there is clear distinction between the observed CBR and the boundary (0.15); however, when the observed CBR approaches the boundary multiple SLT assessments are beneficial. Thus, we recommend to include assessment of inter-rater reliability, if the purpose is to compare CBR and total syllable count across infants or studies.Trial registration number here: www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT00993551.

Opportunities and Challenges in Establishing a Cohort Study: An Example From Cleft Lip/Palate Research in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) is one of the most common birth conditions in the world, but little is known about its causes. Professional opinion remains divided as to which treatments may be the most beneficial for patients with CL/P, and the factors that contribute to psychological adjustment are poorly understood. The use of different methodological approaches and tools plays a key role in hampering efforts to address discrepancies within the evidence base. A new UK-wide program of research, The Cleft Collective, was established to combat many of these methodological challenges and to address some of the key research questions important to all CL/P stakeholders. OBJECTIVE: To describe the establishment of CL/P cohort studies in the United Kingdom and to consider the many opportunities this resource will generate. RESULTS: To date, protocols have been developed and implemented within most UK cleft teams. Biological samples, environmental information, and data pertaining to parental psychological well-being and child development are being collected successfully. Recruitment is currently on track to meet the ambitious target of approximately 9800 individuals from just more than 3000 families. CONCLUSIONS: The Cleft Collective cohort studies represent a significant step forward for research in the field of CL/P. The data collected will form a comprehensive resource of information about individuals with CL/P and their families. This resource will provide the basis for many future projects and collaborations, both in the United Kingdom and around the world.

A cross-sectional cohort study of speech in five-year-olds with cleft palate ± lip to support development of national audit standards: benchmarking speech standards in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: To develop national standards for speech outcomes and processes of care for children with cleft palate ± lip and to test the standards using national data. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this large, multicenter, prospective cohort study, speech recordings of 1110 five-year-olds with cleft palate involvement (born 2001 to 2003) were collected by 12 cleft centers in Great Britain and Ireland. Recordings were analyzed by consensus by specialist speech and language therapists using the Cleft Audit Protocol for Speech-Augmented. Results were benchmarked against evidence-based process and speech outcome standards and statistical analysis undertaken. RESULTS: From the 1110 children audited, 48% (530) had speech within the normal range. This was not significantly different from the agreed standard of 50% (P = .20, CI = 45-50%). Sixty-six percent (734) had speech with no evidence of structurally related speech problems or history of speech-related secondary surgery. This was significantly below the standard of 70% (P = .007, CI = 62-69%). Sixty percent (666) had no serious cleft-related articulation errors. This was significantly better than the agreed standard of 50% (P < .001, CI = 67-73%). More than 80% of 2-year-olds received a specialist speech and language assessment against a benchmark of 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Developing standards has facilitated more meaningful reporting of speech outcomes and treatment processes. Evidence-based standards were defined and extensively tested, enabling centers to compare their performance with national trends. One 5-year outcome standard was achievable; the other two standards will require modification through the mandatory annual national audit program.

A review of outcome measures used in cleft care.

This article provides a summary of the main outcome measures currently available and in use within modern cleft care. The fact that there are such a diverse range, including surgical, orthodontic, dental, speech and patient satisfaction measures, is a reflection of the complex, multidisciplinary and longitudinal nature of the care provided. The use of such measures of outcome is essential in the auditing and drive for continued improvements in the standards of care for patients affected with cleft lip and palate.

Speech and language therapy interventions for children with cleft palate: a systematic review.

Objective : (1) To examine the evidence for the effectiveness of differences in timing and type of speech and language therapy for children with cleft palate with or without a cleft lip and (2) to identify types of interventions assessed. Design : Nine databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, were searched between inception and March 2011 to identify published articles relating to speech and language therapy for children with cleft palate with or without cleft lip. Studies that included at least 10 participants and reported outcome measures for speech and/or language measures were included. Studies where the experimental group had less than 90% of children with cleft palate with or without cleft lip were excluded. Two reviewers independently completed inclusion assessment, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment for all studies identified. Results : A total of 17 papers were evaluated: six randomized control trials and 11 observational studies. Studies varied widely on risk of bias, intervention used, and outcome measures reported. None of the studies had a low risk of bias. In terms of intervention approaches, seven studies evaluated linguistic approaches and 10 evaluated motor approaches. Outcomes measures did not support either approach over the other, and based on data reported it was difficult to ascertain which approach is more effective for children with cleft palate with or without cleft lip. Conclusions : The review found little evidence to support any specific intervention. Key uncertainties need to be identified and adequately powered, methodologically rigorous studies conducted to provide a secure evidence base for speech-language therapy practice in children with cleft palate with or without cleft lip.