FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2040252829> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2040252829 endingPage "984" @default.
• W2040252829 startingPage "984" @default.
• W2040252829 abstract "When the Consortium on Drooling1 was held in 1990, treatments for drooling were on almost nobody’s radar screen. We reviewed and annotated the entire international literature on the subject; it didn’t take long. We tried to gather everyone we could identify in North America with a special interest in treating sialorrhea. Pioneers in surgical approaches participated including Charles Gross (tympanic neurectomy) and Milton Edgerton (submandibular duct transposition). Several sessions were led by the co-directors of the Drooling Control Clinic (both dentists) at the Hugh MacMillan Rehabilitation Centre in Toronto, where their surgeon (William Crysdale) had more experience than anyone in the world. No one was very well-versed in oral drug therapy (the surgeons simply dismissed it) and botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) had not yet come on the scene. Parents and adult patients were part of the discussions. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) engineers were there (‘If you can manage body fluids in space, why can’t we control drooling on earth?’). So where are we 20 years later? Drooling is now readily acknowledged and routinely addressed in the clinic. Publications on the topic have greatly increased in quantity and improved in quality. Surgical approaches continue to be heterogeneous and no one procedure has emerged as the most effective.2 BoNT-A is widely promoted and oral drugs are more likely to be given a trial. We now debate which treatment is better. The comparative study by Scheffer et al.3 appears to have selected a population of relatively poor BoNT-A responders and then intervened with surgery. There were 133 children initially treated with BoNT-A. Only 20 opted for surgery. Despite the authors’ contention that the groups are not different on the basis of drooling quotient numbers, the surgical sample is a ‘different’ (biased) subset of the larger group. The relatively low BoNT-A success rate cited in the paper reinforces this viewpoint; in other words, I suspect the better responders are not represented among the surgical patients. The conclusion that the surgical procedure employed is more effective than BoNT-A is only justifiable in the population studied. Furthermore, this is a mildly involved cerebral palsy cohort: 10 out of 19 were at Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) levels I, II, or III. This makes the low BoNT-A response rate stand out even more and the surgical response rate less impressive in my opinion. Although no one has published the data, in my clinical experience children at GMFCS levels I and II are less afflicted with problem drooling than their counterparts in levels IV and V. An issue related to the above discussion is the outcome measure. As in 1990, ideal outcome measures remain elusive. The drooling quotient is a useful quantitative measure but should be augmented with some measure of parent/patient satisfaction. Given the highly variable nature of drooling in cerebral palsy populations, quantitative measurement systems have always been problematic in drooling studies, and some type of measure (even though subjective) of parent perception of outcome is valuable to augment objective measurements. Thus, 85% of the original cohort reported by Scheffer et al. were content enough with their treatment (or aversive enough to the thought of surgery) to continue with what they were doing. Some must not have been surgical candidates. The remaining individuals who agreed to surgery would likely have been relatively low on a satisfaction scale. So what is the best alternative? We know that a variety of surgeries work and that anti-cholinergics, given orally or by injection (BoNT-A), also work. The authors of the article perceive BoNT-A and behavioral therapy as providing ‘effective, minimally invasive drooling relief.’ They remain dismissive of oral anti-cholinergics, stating BoNT-A ‘has emerged as the only serious alternative to surgery…’ The successful use of oral anticholinergics is well documented in the literature to be at least as effective as BoNT-A.4 In truth, there are no convincing data to support any one treatment over the other. The study that needs to be undertaken is a head-to-head comparison of BoNT-A and the more traditional oral anticholinergics – glycopyrrolate, hyoscyamine, or trihexyphenidyl. Meanwhile, I continue to recommend oral drugs and behavior modification interventions first.4, 5 BoNT-A comes next and surgery remains a last resort, following a least to most invasive sequence and cautioned by the fear of potential irreversible side effects.6 Scheffer et al. rightly point out that the procedure they favor (submandibular duct relocation) is not suitable for children at high risk for aspiration." @default.
• W2040252829 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2040252829 creator A5072643453 @default.
• W2040252829 date "2010-07-15" @default.
• W2040252829 modified "2023-10-04" @default.
• W2040252829 title "The treatment of drooling" @default.
• W2040252829 cites W2015418460 @default.
• W2040252829 cites W2064691378 @default.
• W2040252829 cites W2115183420 @default.
• W2040252829 cites W4249843991 @default.
• W2040252829 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2010.03741.x" @default.
• W2040252829 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20636390" @default.
• W2040252829 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W2040252829 type Work @default.
• W2040252829 sameAs 2040252829 @default.
• W2040252829 citedByCount "7" @default.
• W2040252829 countsByYear W20402528292015 @default.
• W2040252829 countsByYear W20402528292016 @default.
• W2040252829 countsByYear W20402528292017 @default.
• W2040252829 countsByYear W20402528292019 @default.
• W2040252829 countsByYear W20402528292021 @default.
• W2040252829 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2040252829 hasAuthorship W2040252829A5072643453 @default.
• W2040252829 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2040252829 hasConcept C2776796639 @default.
• W2040252829 hasConcept C2909146933 @default.
• W2040252829 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2040252829 hasConcept C99508421 @default.
• W2040252829 hasConceptScore W2040252829C141071460 @default.
• W2040252829 hasConceptScore W2040252829C2776796639 @default.
• W2040252829 hasConceptScore W2040252829C2909146933 @default.
• W2040252829 hasConceptScore W2040252829C71924100 @default.
• W2040252829 hasConceptScore W2040252829C99508421 @default.
• W2040252829 hasIssue "11" @default.
• W2040252829 hasLocation W20402528291 @default.
• W2040252829 hasLocation W20402528292 @default.
• W2040252829 hasOpenAccess W2040252829 @default.
• W2040252829 hasPrimaryLocation W20402528291 @default.
• W2040252829 hasRelatedWork W1963536094 @default.
• W2040252829 hasRelatedWork W2022022245 @default.
• W2040252829 hasRelatedWork W2026431768 @default.
• W2040252829 hasRelatedWork W2078413807 @default.
• W2040252829 hasRelatedWork W2101820599 @default.
• W2040252829 hasRelatedWork W2412021090 @default.
• W2040252829 hasRelatedWork W2804939444 @default.
• W2040252829 hasRelatedWork W3141915408 @default.
• W2040252829 hasRelatedWork W4384493315 @default.
• W2040252829 hasRelatedWork W8556072 @default.
• W2040252829 hasVolume "52" @default.
• W2040252829 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2040252829 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2040252829 magId "2040252829" @default.
• W2040252829 workType "article" @default.