Table 3.

Characterization of studies comparing methods of feeding in the postoperative period of surgical repair of cleft lip and/or palate, isolated lip repair, or lip associated or not associated with palate.

Year Author	LE	n/group	Age range	Cleft	Methods	Assessed parameters	Results
1992 Cohen	3b	40/40	4 d to 12 m	Lip and/or palate	Tube and syringe vs. Bottle/BF	Surgical wound dehiscence and fistula; weight gain; nutritional status.	Wound dehiscence and presence of fistula was similar in both groups; better weight gain and nutritional status in the bottle/BF group.
1996 Darzi	1b	20/20	3–6 m	Lip	BF vs. spoon	Weight; wound dehiscence and appearance; analgesia and intravenous fluids; hospital costs.	BF: greater weight gain. Spoon: greater need for analgesia/sedation and intravenous fluids for a longer period of time and higher hospital costs.
2005 Assunção	1b	23/22	3–13 m	Involving lip	Bottle and spoon vs. spoon	Anthropometrics; caloric intake; clinical analysis tests; wound complications.	Similar results with both methods, but with better acceptance of food with bottle and spoon.
2013 Augsornwan	1b	96/96	3–6 m	Involving lip	BF/bottle vs. spoon/syringe	Wound complications; parental satisfaction.	Similar results regarding wound dehiscence; parents more satisfied with BF/bottle.

n, number of subjects or observations; d, days; m, months; BF, breastfeeding; tube, feeding tube; LE, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association level of evidence.¹³