Effect of lingual frenotomy on the breastfeeding improvement

Possamai, Camila Fontanella; Schäfer, Antônio Augusto; Quadra, Micaela Rabelo; Martins, Carla Damasio; Meller, Fernanda de Oliveira

doi:10.20396/bjos.v22i00.8668415

Camila Fontanella Possamai

participated in the conception and design of the study

acquisition

analysis and interpretation of data

draft and revised it critically for important intellectual content

All author revised and approved the final version to be published and are responsible for all aspects of the work

Postgraduated Program in Public Health, University of Southern Santa Catarina. Criciúma, Santa Catarina, Brazil.

Antônio Augusto Schäfer

participated in the conception and design of the study

acquisition

analysis and interpretation of data

draft and revised it critically for important intellectual content

All author revised and approved the final version to be published and are responsible for all aspects of the work

Postgraduated Program in Public Health, University of Southern Santa Catarina. Criciúma, Santa Catarina, Brazil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8834-0434

Micaela Rabelo Quadra

participated in the analysis and interpretation of the data

draft and revised it critically for important intellectual content

All author revised and approved the final version to be published and are responsible for all aspects of the work

Postgraduated Program in Public Health, University of Southern Santa Catarina. Criciúma, Santa Catarina, Brazil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6380-7720

Carla Damasio Martins

participated in the analysis and interpretation of the data

draft and revised it critically for important intellectual content

All author revised and approved the final version to be published and are responsible for all aspects of the work

Postgraduated Program in Public Health, University of Southern Santa Catarina. Criciúma, Santa Catarina, Brazil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7869-9315

Fernanda de Oliveira Meller

participated in the conception and design of the study

acquisition

analysis and interpretation of data

draft and revised it critically for important intellectual content

All author revised and approved the final version to be published and are responsible for all aspects of the work

Postgraduated Program in Public Health, University of Southern Santa Catarina. Criciúma, Santa Catarina, Brazil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1174-4721

Corresponding author: Fernanda de Oliveira Meller Postgraduated Program in Public Health. University of Southern Santa Catarina. Avenida Universitária, 1105, CEP 88806-000, Criciúma, Santa Catarina, Brasil Telefone: +55 48 3431 2609 E-mail: fernandameller@unesc.net

Editor: Altair A. Del Bel Cury

Conflicts of interest

None.

Variable	n	%
Children variables
Sex
Male	45	60.8
Female	29	39.2
Age (in days)
Median	44,5
Interquantile range	33-56
Birth weight (in grams)
Mean	3412.8
Standard deviation	451.8
Birth heigh (em centimenters)
Mean	49.6
Standard deviation	2.3
Exclusive breastfeeding *
No	26	41.9
Yes	36	58.1
Pacifier use
No	25	33.8
Yes	49	66.2
Bottle use
No	34	45.9
Yes	40	54.1
Mothers variables
Skin color
White	63	85.1
Non-white	11	14.9
Schooling (in years)
≤8	21	28.4
9-11	42	56.7
≥12	11	14.9
Work outside home
No	41	55.4
Yes	33	44.6
Childbirth
Normal	32	43.2
Cesarean	42	56.8
Mother age (in years)
Mean	27.8
Standard deviation	6.7
Gestational age (in weeks)
Mean	39.2
Standard deviation	1.3
Breastfeeding before surgery
No	12	16.2
Yes	62	83.8
Breastfeeding before surgery
No	26	35.1
Yes	48	64.9

Variáveis	Before surgery		After surgery		p-value*
Variáveis	n	%	n	%	p-value*
Stimulus for the baby to breastfeed					0.068
Does not need to be stimulated (takes the breast alone)	14	22.6	19	39.5
There is a need for stimulation (touch the baby’s face against the breast)	24	38.7	9	18.8
There is a need to use a light stimulation such as pats	1	1.6	1	2.1
The baby is placed on the chest without the need for effort	23	37.1	19	39.6
The handle on the breast					0.015
It does not handle well even with stimulation	6	9.7	1	2.1
It is necessary to stimulate it	20	32.3	7	14.6
It takes effectively all at once	36	58.1	40	83.3
Mother feels breast pain					0.479
No	39	62.9	36	75
Mild	9	14.5	6	12.5
Moderate	12	19.4	6	12.5
Severe	2	3.2	0	0
Mother feels throbbing pain when breastfeeding					0.058
No	32	51.7	35	72.9
Mild	19	30.6	7	14.6
Moderate	8	12.9	6	12.5
Severe	3	4.8	0	0
Mother feels pain as if she had a blow to the breast					0.004
No	47	75.9	46	95.8
Mild	10	16.1	0	0
Moderate	3	4.8	2	4.2
Severe	2	3.2	0	0
Mother feels sharp pain in the breast					0.001
No	42	67.8	43	89.6
Mild	8	12.9	4	8.3
Moderate	9	14.5	0	0
Severe	3	4.8	1	2.1
Mother feels colic					0.914
No	52	83.9	42	87.5
Mild	7	11.3	4	8.3
Moderate	3	4.8	2	4.2
Mother feels pain as if the baby chews the breast					0.019
No	44	71	44	91.7
Mild	9	14.5	4	8.3
Moderate	6	9.7	0	0
Severe	3	4.8	0	0
Mother feels pain as if the breast is burning					0.512
No	46	74.2	40	83.3
Mild	8	12.9	6	12.5
Moderate	7	11.3	2	4.2
Severe	1	1.6	0	0
Mother feels heavy breast					0.645
No	41	66.1	36	75
Slightlty	12	19.4	8	16.7
Moderately	7	11.3	4	8.3
A lot	2	3.2	0	0
Mother feels breast cracking					0.044
No	51	82.2	47	97.9
Slightlty	5	8.1	1	2.1
A little	5	8.1	0	0
A lot	1	1.6	0	0
Breastfeeding is tiring or exhausting					0.001
No	27	43.5	31	64.6
Slightlty	14	22.6	5	10.4
A little	14	22.6	10	20.8
A lot	7	11.3	2	4.2
Mother feels sick					1
No	59	95.2	46	95.8
A little	2	3.2	2	4.2
A lot	1	1.6	0	0
Mother feels scared					0.450
No	55	88.7	46	95.8
A little	5	8.1	2	4.2
A lot	2	3.2	0	0
Mother feels chastised					0.328
No	60	96.8	47	97.9
A little	2	3.2	0	0
A lot	0	0	1	2.1

Variáveis	n	%
Improvement in attachment
No	8	16.7
Yes	40	83.3
Duration of breastfeeding
Changed	29	60.4
Remained the same	19	39.6
Change in duration *
Increase	20	69.0
Decreased	9	31.0
Pain reduction for the mother
No	30	62.5
Yes	18	37.5
Improvement in the baby’s breathing
No	12	25.0
Yes	36	75.0
Breastfeeding frequency
Changed	29	60.4
Remained the same	19	39.6
If there was a change in breastfeeding frequency *
Increase	15	51.7
Decreased	14	48.3
Breastfeeding became easier
No	7	14.6
Yes	41	85.4

	Exclusive breastfeeding		p-value
	Yes n (%)	No n (%)	p-value
Children variable
Sex			0.231**
Male	21 (52.5%)	19 (47.5%)
Female	15 (68.2%)	7 (31.8%)
Birth weight (in grams)			0.867**
< 3500	20 (57.1%)	15 (42.9%)
≥ 3500	16 (59.3%)	11 (40.7%)
Birth height (em centimeters)			0.894**
< 50	16 (57.1%)	12 (42.9%)
≥ 50	20 (58.8%)	14 (41.2%)
Pacifier use			0.019**
No	19 (76.0%)	6 (24.0%)
Yes	17 (45.9%)	20 (54.1%)
Bottle use			<0.001*
No	34 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Yes	2 (7.1%)	26 (92.9%)
Mother variables
Skin color			0.050*
White	34 (63.0%)	20 (37.0%)
Non-white	2 (25.0%)	6 (75.0%)
Schooling (in years)			0.194*
≤8	11 (64.7%)	6 (35.3%)
9-11	17 (48.6%)	18 (51.4%)
≥12	8 (80.0%)	2 (20.0%)
Work outside home			0.934**
No	19 (57.6%)	14 (42.4%)
Yes	17 (58.6%)	12 (41.4%)
Childbirth			0.894**
Normal	16 (57.1%)	12 (42.9%)
Cesarean	20 (58.8%)	14 (41.2%)
Age (in years)			0.736**
< 30	25 (59.5%)	17 (40.5%)
≥ 30	11 (55.0%)	9 (45.0%)
Gestational age (in week)			0.280**
≤ 38	8 (47.1%)	9 (52.9%)
> 38	28 (62.2%)	17 (37.8%)

[1] Corresponding author: Fernanda de Oliveira Meller Postgraduated Program in Public Health. University of Southern Santa Catarina. Avenida Universitária, 1105, CEP 88806-000, Criciúma, Santa Catarina, Brasil Telefone: +55 48 3431 2609 E-mail: fernandameller@unesc.net

Brasil

Brasil

Effect of lingual frenotomy on the breastfeeding improvement

Aim

Methods

Results

Conclusions