Influence of Objective Three-Dimensional Measures and Movement Images on Surgeon Treatment Planning for Lip Revision Surgery

Objective To determine whether a systematic evaluation of facial soft tissues of patients with cleft lip and palate, using facial video images and objective three-dimensional measurements of movement, change surgeons' treatment plans for lip revision surgery. Design Prospective longitudinal stu...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal 2013-11, Vol.50 (6), p.684-695
Hauptverfasser: Trotman, Carroll-Ann, Phillips, Ceib, Faraway, Julian J., Hartman, Terry, Van Aalst, John A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objective To determine whether a systematic evaluation of facial soft tissues of patients with cleft lip and palate, using facial video images and objective three-dimensional measurements of movement, change surgeons' treatment plans for lip revision surgery. Design Prospective longitudinal study. Setting The University of North Carolina School of Dentistry. Patients, Participants A group of patients with repaired cleft lip and palate (n =21), a noncleft control group (n = 37), and surgeons experienced in cleft care. Interventions Lip revision. Main Outcome Measures (1) facial photographic images; (2) facial video images during animations; (3) objective three-dimensional measurements of upper lip movement based on z scores; and (4) objective dynamic and visual three-dimensional measurement of facial soft tissue movement. Results With the use of the video images plus objective three-dimensional measures, the operating surgeon changed the problem list of the surgical treatment plan for 86% of the patients (95% confidence interval, 0.64 to 0.97) and the surgical goals for 71% of the patients (95% confidence interval, 0.48 to 0.89). The surgeon group varied in the percentage of patients for whom the problem list was modified, ranging from 24% (95% confidence interval, 8% to 47%) to 48% (95% confidence interval, 26% to 70%) of patients, and the percentage for whom the surgical goals were modified, ranging from 14% (94% confidence interval, 3% to 36%) to 48% (95% confidence interval, 26% to 70%) of patients. Conclusions For all surgeons, the additional assessment components of the systematic valuation resulted in a change in clinical decision making for some patients.
ISSN:1055-6656
1545-1569
DOI:10.1597/12-191