Efficacy of surgical navigation in zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures: randomized controlled trial

Abstract Background: Augmented reality (AR) is a new technology that increases users’ perception of the real world. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of augmented reality navigation system in treatment with craniofacial fracture reduction.Methods: This will be a single-center prospective randomized controlled trial. Twenty-two patients will be assigned to two groups of 11 and those with zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures will undergo preoperative three-dimensional CT modeling and have operational plans designed. The control team will use traditional optical navigation to perform the surgery and the experimental team will use an AR navigation system. The primary outcome measures will be the accuracy of the key points of surgical area between the preoperational surgical plan and post-operation. The secondary outcome measures will be the blood loss, operation time, bone reduction time, hospital time and complication rate. The findings obtained through this study are expected to evaluate efficacy and safety of the augmented reality navigation system in the treatment of zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures.Discussion: This controlled trial of augmented reality navigation system in treatment with zygomaticomaxillary complex fracture reduction is expected to clarify the efficacy and safety of this technology by measuring the accuracy of the key points of surgical area and blood loss, operation and bone reduction times, hospital stay duration and complication rates. This is a single-center study, and the results are expected to promote the application of augmented reality in craniofacial fracture reduction to improve surgery accuracy and efficacy.Trial registration: Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: No. ChiCTR1900022626. Registered on April 19, 2019.

Download Full-text

Treatment Fidelity Procedures for an Aphasia Intervention Within a Randomized Controlled Trial: Design, Feasibility, and Results

American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology ◽

10.1044/2019_ajslp-cac48-18-0227 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 29 (1S) ◽

pp. 412-424

Author(s):

Elissa L. Conlon ◽

Emily J. Braun ◽

Edna M. Babbitt ◽

Leora R. Cherney

Keyword(s):

Randomized Controlled Trial ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Treatment Protocol ◽

Treatment Fidelity ◽

Protocol Adherence ◽

Study Condition ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Aphasia Therapy ◽

Percent Accuracy ◽

Over Time

Purpose This study reports on the treatment fidelity procedures implemented during a 5-year randomized controlled trial comparing intensive and distributed comprehensive aphasia therapy. Specifically, the results of 1 treatment, verb network strengthening treatment (VNeST), are examined. Method Eight participants were recruited for each of 7 consecutive cohorts for a total of 56 participants. Participants completed 60 hr of aphasia therapy, including 15 hr of VNeST. Two experienced speech-language pathologists delivered the treatment. To promote treatment fidelity, the study team developed a detailed manual of procedures and fidelity checklists, completed role plays to standardize treatment administration, and video-recorded all treatment sessions for review. To assess protocol adherence during treatment delivery, trained research assistants not involved in the treatment reviewed video recordings of a subset of randomly selected VNeST treatment sessions and completed the fidelity checklists. This process was completed for 32 participants representing 2 early cohorts and 2 later cohorts, which allowed for measurement of protocol adherence over time. Percent accuracy of protocol adherence was calculated across clinicians, cohorts, and study condition (intensive vs. distributed therapy). Results The fidelity procedures were sufficient to promote and verify a high level of adherence to the treatment protocol across clinicians, cohorts, and study condition. Conclusion Treatment fidelity strategies and monitoring are feasible when incorporated into the study design. Treatment fidelity monitoring should be completed at regular intervals during the course of a study to ensure that high levels of protocol adherence are maintained over time and across conditions.

Download Full-text

Phonomotor Versus Semantic Feature Analysis Treatment for Anomia in 58 Persons With Aphasia: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research ◽

10.1044/2019_jslhr-l-18-0257 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 62 (12) ◽

pp. 4464-4482 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

Diane L. Kendall ◽

Megan Oelke Moldestad ◽

Wesley Allen ◽

Janaki Torrence ◽

Stephen E. Nadeau

Keyword(s):

Randomized Controlled Trial ◽

Response Latency ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Semantic Knowledge ◽

Semantic Feature ◽

Feature Analysis ◽

Group Differences ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Confrontation Naming ◽

Semantic Feature Analysis

Purpose The ultimate goal of anomia treatment should be to achieve gains in exemplars trained in the therapy session, as well as generalization to untrained exemplars and contexts. The purpose of this study was to test the efficacy of phonomotor treatment, a treatment focusing on enhancement of phonological sequence knowledge, against semantic feature analysis (SFA), a lexical-semantic therapy that focuses on enhancement of semantic knowledge and is well known and commonly used to treat anomia in aphasia. Method In a between-groups randomized controlled trial, 58 persons with aphasia characterized by anomia and phonological dysfunction were randomized to receive 56–60 hr of intensively delivered treatment over 6 weeks with testing pretreatment, posttreatment, and 3 months posttreatment termination. Results There was no significant between-groups difference on the primary outcome measure (untrained nouns phonologically and semantically unrelated to each treatment) at 3 months posttreatment. Significant within-group immediately posttreatment acquisition effects for confrontation naming and response latency were observed for both groups. Treatment-specific generalization effects for confrontation naming were observed for both groups immediately and 3 months posttreatment; a significant decrease in response latency was observed at both time points for the SFA group only. Finally, significant within-group differences on the Comprehensive Aphasia Test–Disability Questionnaire ( Swinburn, Porter, & Howard, 2004 ) were observed both immediately and 3 months posttreatment for the SFA group, and significant within-group differences on the Functional Outcome Questionnaire ( Glueckauf et al., 2003 ) were found for both treatment groups 3 months posttreatment. Discussion Our results are consistent with those of prior studies that have shown that SFA treatment and phonomotor treatment generalize to untrained words that share features (semantic or phonological sequence, respectively) with the training set. However, they show that there is no significant generalization to untrained words that do not share semantic features or phonological sequence features.

Download Full-text