A Comparison of Speech Outcome in Pediatric Cleft Patients, After Modified Furlow-Sommerlad Palat… (NCT03995199) | Clinical Trial Compass
UnknownNot Applicable
A Comparison of Speech Outcome in Pediatric Cleft Patients, After Modified Furlow-Sommerlad Palatoplasty in Comparison to Modified Furlow Palatoplasty Alone
Belgium60 participantsStarted 2017-09-13
Plain-language summary
Nowadays, surgical success of cleft palate patients is ascribed to the sufficiency of velopharyngeal closure, and the associated speech results such as voice nasality, resonance and articulation. The investigators aim to evaluate if the surgical modified Furlow palatoplasty in combination with the intravelar veloplasty according to Sommerlad significantly reduces the number of pediatric patients with abnormal speech between five and seven years of age, as measured with the four-point scale recently published by Nguyen et al.(2015), in comparison to the conventional modified Furlow technique.
study design A prospective cohort trial. All cleft palate patients surgically treated with a modified Furlow technique since January 2012 or a modified Furlow technique in combination with an intravelar veloplasty by Sommerlad routinely undergo an annual speech evaluation by the speech language pathologist of the cleft team. At the age of five, eligible patients that are in continuous follow-up by the cleft team at our hospital, will be asked for consent to register their demographic, surgical and speech-related data. In addition, the parents of cleft patients will be asked to complete a quality of life questionnaire concerning their child, at the time of speech evaluation through self-report or through an interview with the clinical research coordinator.
The investigators hypothesise that the combined modified Furlow and Sommerlad palatoplasty leads to a minimal 50% reduction in the proportion of children with abnormal speech, as defined by the four-point scale recently published by Nguyen et al.(2015), compared to patients that underwent a Modified Furlow technique alone.
conclusion Although the technique by Sommerlad has shown promising results, prospective trials comparing postoperative speech outcome after different surgical techniques, are lacking. The present trial could offer objective results to validate the current surgical treatment protocol implemented at our department.
Who can participate
Age range
5 Years – 7 Years
Sex
ALL
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Inclusion Criteria:
* Patients should have a clinically diagnosed cleft of the hard and/or soft palatum, with or without involvement of the lip or nose (Veau classification I to IV (see Appendix 1).
* Patients should have undergone a modified Furlow palatoplasty or modified Furlow according to Sommerlad in the AZ Sint-Jan Brugge-Oostende av
* Patients should receive their postoperative care and speech therapy by the cleft team of the general hospital Sint-Jan Bruges
* Patients should be in the fifth life year at time of speech evaluation
* Patients should be Dutch-speaking as a maternal language
Exclusion Criteria:
* Patients not meeting the abovementioned inclusion criteria
* Patients that received a corrective surgical procedure for velopharyngeal dysfunction after the modified Furlow technique alone, or in combination with the intravelar veloplasty by Sommerlad
* Patients that are bi- or multilingual
* Patients with clinically diagnosed mild hearing difficulties (i.e. ASHA classification: hearing loss \>25dB)30
* Patients with a clinically diagnosed stutter
* Patients with clinically diagnosed cognitive and/or motoric disabilities
* Patients that received intensive speech therapy prior to their fifth life year can be included, but will be analyzed separately(subgroup analysis)
* Note: The number of patients with a uni- or bilateral cleft involving the lip or nose should be comparable between both groups, since this can interfere with speech and could bias comparison of …
Questions worth asking your doctor
Bring these to your next appointment. They're a starting point for a shared conversation — not a sign you qualify or a recommendation to enrol.
1Based on my diagnosis and history, is this trial worth exploring for me — or is there a standard treatment we should try first?
2What does this trial's phase tell us about how much is already known about its safety and benefit?
3What would taking part actually involve for me — visits, tests, time, and travel?
4What are the known and possible risks or side effects I should weigh, and how would they be monitored?
5If this trial isn't the right fit, what other options or trials would you suggest I look into?
Generated to help you prepare — always confirm anything about your own eligibility and care with the study team and your doctor.
Questions for the trial coordinator
The trial coordinator is the person who runs the study day to day. These cover the practical side — logistics, costs, and what taking part would actually mean for your life. The study team confirms whether you meet the criteria; these are questions to ask, not a sign you qualify.
1What does taking part actually involve week to week — how many visits, where, and how long does each one take?
2What costs are covered by the study, and what might I have to pay for myself, including travel, parking, or time off work?
3What happens during screening, and what happens if the study team confirms I don't meet the criteria after those tests?
4Who pays for the scans, blood work, and other tests the trial requires — the study, my insurance, or me?
5How will being in the trial affect my regular care, and will my own doctor stay informed and involved?
6Can I leave the trial at any point if I change my mind, and what would happen to my care if I do?
A starting point for the conversation — always confirm anything about your own eligibility, costs, and care with the study team and your doctor.
What they're measuring
1
proportion of children with abnormal speech, as defined by the four-point scale recently published by Nguyen et al.(2015)
Timeframe: at time of routine speech evaluation between age 5-7 years old