The need for maxillary osteotomy after primary cleft surgery: A systematic review framing a retrospective study

Cephalometric Parameters as Predictive Factors for Orthognathic Surgery in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

To identify cephalometric parameters that could predict future need for orthognathic surgery (OGS) in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP).

Final search was conducted on July 7, 2024, across PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, EBSCO, and LILACS, without any language and publication time restriction. Studies comparing surgical versus nonsurgical UCLP patients were included. Two independent reviewers screened studies, and those included were evaluated using Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool. Random-effects meta-analysis of various sagittal and vertical cephalometric parameters (SNA, SNB, ANB, mandibular plane angle [MPA], and lower anterior face height [%LFH]) was performed.

Ten studies were included in systematic review and 5 in meta-analysis. Quality in Prognostic Studies tool assessment indicated moderate risk in 6 studies, with 2 demonstrating high and low risks of bias. Meta-analysis revealed that in the 5- to 8-year age group, significant differences were observed in SNA and ANB angles between surgical and nonsurgical groups, with mean differences of 2.25° (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.12, 3.39) and 3° (95% CI = 1.86, 4.15), respectively. In 9- to 14-year age group, significant differences were found in all 3 sagittal parameters: SNA angle difference of 2.65° (95% CI = 1.44, 3.86), SNB angle difference of 3.23° (95% CI = -4.69, -1.77), and ANB angle difference of 5.54° (95% CI = 3.66, 7.42). Vertical parameters (MPA and %LFH) were not statistically significant between groups in any age group.

Cephalometric parameters could be a valuable predictive factor for determining the future need for OGS in patients with UCLP. ANB angle has been shown to be a significant predictor for distinguishing between surgical and nonsurgical patients.

A Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes between Unilateral and Bilateral Palatoplasty: Analysis of 2015-2020 Pediatric NSQIP Data

OBJECTIVE

We sought to identify differences in 30-day medical and surgical complications in unilateral versus bilateral palatoplasty.

DESIGN

The NSQIP-P 2015-2020 database was queried to identify cleft palate repairs using CPT codes. Cases were stratified as unilateral (Veau III) and bilateral (Veau IV) using ICD-9 and -10 codes.

SETTING

A nationally representative random sample.

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS

A total of 3791 cases were identified with 2608 undergoing unilateral repair and 1183 undergoing bilateral repair.

MAIN OUTCOMES/MEASURES

The postoperative outcomes of interest included surgical complications (surgical site infections, wound dehiscence), medical complications (pneumonia, urinary tract infection, seizure, cardiac arrest, bleeding/transfusions, systemic sepsis, unplanned intubation), readmission, and reoperation.

RESULTS

The bilateral cohort was older (696 days versus 619 days, P < .001) and had longer operative times (157.3 min versus 144.5 min, P < .001). The unilateral cohort had more comorbidities including developmental delay, structural CNS abnormalities, need for nutritional support, and bleeding disorders. The bilateral cohort had statistically significant higher occurrences of wound dehiscence (2.1% versus. 1.2%, P = .03) and readmission (3.2% versus 1.7%, P = .01). On multivariate analysis, bilateral cleft repair (OR: 1.83, CI: 1.176-2.840, P = .007) and ASA class 4 (OR: 13.1, CI 2.288- 62.586, P = .002) were associated with greater odds of readmission.

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent bilateral cleft repair had a higher proportion of 30-day postoperative complications and a two-fold increased odds of readmission. While palatoplasty is generally regarded as a safe procedure in the pediatric population, identifying factors related to an increased risk of early postoperative complications can help surgical teams better manage high-risk individuals.

Reshaping Faces, Redefining Risks: A Systematic Review of Orthognathic Surgery Outcomes in Cleft Lip and Palate Patients

Background: This study aims to determine a generalized outcome and risk profile for patients undergoing orthognathic surgery for the definitive treatment of cleft lip and palate. Furthermore, we hope to determine the key risk factors that cause increased risk for cleft lip and palate patients undergoing orthognathic surgery. Methods: This study includes a systematic review using PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Scopus. Data curation utilized Covidence software, with dual-reviewer screening and conflict resolution by a third party, focusing on publications with the full texts available. Results: The initial search yielded 1697 articles. Following title, abstract, and full-text screening, a total of 62 articles were included in this review. A total of 70.9% of included articles had moderate bias, with the rest having low risk of bias. The sample consisted of 2550 patients with an average age of about 20 years and an average follow-up of 16.8 months. The most employed procedure was Le Fort I osteotomy (99%). In terms of velopharyngeal function, there were notable increases in insufficiency and severity scores, with an average 63% worsening score from the baseline. That being said, patients experienced an average 33% improvement in speech articulation. Furthermore, the average horizontal movement was reported to be 6.09 mm with a subsequent relapse of 0.98 mm overall. Conclusions: This systematic review distills data from 62 articles and 2550 patients. It highlights the efficacy of orthognathic surgery in addressing oropharyngeal and aesthetic deficits. This study identifies relapse and velopharyngeal insufficiency as recurrent complications. These insights inform surgical refinement and patient counseling, laying a foundation for enhanced clinical protocols.

Intraoral Scanning Evaluation of Maxillary Arch Changes after Modified Sommerlad Palatoplasty for around Three Years

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to investigate dental arch changes after modified Sommerlad palatoplasty in patients with cleft palate by intraoral scanning technique in children with early deciduous dentition.

METHODS

This study included 60 patients with nonsyndromic unilateral complete cleft lip with palate or cleft palate only treated by modified Sommerlad palatoplasty without relaxed excision before 18 months of age and 95 healthy controls without cleft. Three-dimensional images of the maxillary dental arches of all participants at age 3 to 4 years were obtained by intraoral scanning technique. Seven parameters (anterior dental arch width, middle dental arch width, posterior dental arch width, anterior palatal arch width, posterior palatal arch width, anterior dental arch length, and entire dental arch length) were measured.

RESULTS

Compared with the male group, the posterior palatal arch width distance of controls in the female group decreased significantly ( P = 0.039), and the middle dental arch width, posterior dental arch width, and posterior palatal arch width distance of female patients decreased ( P = 0.013, P = 0.002, P = 0.005, respectively). The anterior dental arch length and entire dental arch length distance of children in the unilateral complete cleft lip with palate group was shorter than those of children with cleft palate only ( P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001, respectively). The patient group showed decreased distance of anterior dental arch width, anterior palatal arch width, anterior dental arch length, and entire dental arch length, and increased distance of posterior dental arch width and posterior palatal arch width compared with the control group ( P = 0.0002, P = 0.002, P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001, P = 0.007, P = 0.027, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The results indicated that the modified palatoplasty group showed no growth inhibition in the middle or posterior dental arch width, or palatal arch width, but slight but significant inhibition in the length of the anterior and entire dental arch.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDNCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Exploring the relationship between the number of systematic reviews and quality of evidence: an orthognathic surgery-based study

OBJECTIVE

We analyzed the quality and quantity of systematic reviews (SRs) of orthognathic surgery, the most frequently published topic in maxillofacial surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

We searched the PubMed database for SRs of orthognathic surgery with no restriction on the language of publication date. We assessed the certainty of evidence presented according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol and the Leiden Manifesto using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We analyzed the data using descriptive statistics, Pearson´s correlation test, and linear regression.

RESULTS

Of the 171 SRs evaluated, approximately one fifth presented evidence with a high level of certainty. The number of orthognathic surgery SRs has been increasing, and many SRs were published after very similar topics had already been published. There is no relationship between the impact factor and the certainty of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

An excessive number of SRs of orthognathic surgery are published, and many SRs are superfluous, simply reporting previous findings. Clinicians should not base treatment decisions solely on the evidence presented in SRs, and journal editors and reviewers should evaluate these SRs more critically, particularly when they address topics that have already been covered in the literature.

Updates in Cleft Care

Cleft lip and/or palate is a congenital malformation with a wide range of presentations, and its effective treatment necessitates sustained, comprehensive care across an affected child's life. Early diagnosis, ideally through prenatal imaging or immediately postbirth, is paramount. Access to longitudinal care and long-term follow-up with a multidisciplinary approach, led by the recommendations of the American Cleft Palate Association, is the best way to ensure optimal outcomes. Multiple specialties including plastic surgery, otolaryngology, speech therapy, orthodontists, psychologists, and audiologists all may be indicated in the care of the child. Primary repair of the lip, nose, and palate are generally conducted during infancy. Postoperative care demands meticulous oversight to detect potential complications. If necessary, revisional surgeries should be performed before the child begin primary school. As the child matures, secondary procedures like alveolar bone grafting and orthognathic surgery may be requisite. The landscape of cleft care has undergone significant transformation since early surgical correction, with treatment plans now tailored to the specific type and severity of the cleft. The purpose of this text is to outline the current standards of care in children born with cleft lip and/or palate and to highlight ongoing advancements in the field.

Cleft Palate Repair: A History of Techniques and Variations

Orofacial clefting is a common reconstructive surgical condition that often involves the palate. Cleft palate repair has evolved over three centuries from merely achieving anatomical closure to prioritizing speech development and avoiding midface hypoplasia. Despite centuries of advancements, there is still substantial controversy and variable consensus on technique, timing, and sequence of cleft palate repair procedures. Furthermore, evaluating the success of various techniques is hindered by a lack of universal outcome metrics and difficulty maintaining long-term follow-up. This article presents the current controversies of cleft palate repair and details how the history of cleft palate repair has influenced current techniques commonly used worldwide. Our review highlights the need for a global consortium on cleft care to gather expert opinions on current practices and outcomes and to standardize technique classifications. An understanding of global protocols is crucial in an attempt to standardize technique and timing to achieve anatomical closure with optimal velopharyngeal competence, while also minimizing the occurrence of maxillary hypoplasia and palatal fistulae.

Relapse-related factors of Le Fort I osteotomy in cleft lip and palate patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

A systematic review search was based on the PICOS approach, as follows: population: cleft lip and palate patients; intervention: Le Fort I osteotomy; comparator: different surgical protocols; outcome: stability, recurrence or surgical complications; study designs: only case reports were excluded from the review. No restrictions were placed on language or year of publication. Risk of bias was analyzed, heterogeneity was assessed, and subgroup analysis was performed using a level of significance of 1% (p = 0.01). The search identified 248 citations, from which 29 studies were selected and a total of 797 patients enrolled. The level of agreement between the authors was considered excellent (k = 0.810 for study selection and k = 0.941 for study eligibility). Our results reported a mean maxillary advancement of 5.69 mm, a mean vertical downward/upward of 2.85/-2.02 mm and a mean clockwise rotation of 4.15°. Greater surgical relapse rates were reported for vertical downward movement (-1.13 mm, 39.6%), followed by clockwise rotation (-1.41°, 33.9%), sagittal (-0.99 mm, 17.4%) and vertical upward (0.11 mm, 5.4%) movements. No relevance was found regarding the type of cleft, the type of Le Fort I osteotomy, concomitant bone grafting, surgical overcorrection, postoperative rigid or elastic intermaxillary fixation, or retention splint. Study limitations were heterogeneity and the low number of high-quality studies. In spite of reported high relapse rates, Le Fort I osteotomy for maxillary reposition is the first-choice procedure for selected cleft lip and palate patients in whom extensive maxillary movements are not required, because of its safety and its three-dimensional movement versatility in one-step surgery. Otherwise, distraction osteogenesis should be considered as the gold standard treatment.

Correlation between surgical protocols for palatoplasty and midfacial growth in cleft lip and palate patients: A long-term, single centre study

To evaluate and compare the outcomes of two different surgical protocols for palatoplasty for midfacial growth in patients with cleft lip and palate. A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted in 80 patients with cleft lip and palate, who were divided into two groups. Group 1 comprised patients who underwent operation between 9 and 11 months of age using the Bardach two-flap technique without a palatal pushback. Group 2 comprised patients who had undergone operation between 18 and 20 months of age using either a Bardach two-flap technique with a palatal pushback or a von Langenbeck technique. Patient follow-up was done between 8 and 9 years of age when they reported to the centre for secondary alveolar bone grafting. Post-surgical cephalometric measurements were taken for midfacial growth analysis. Group 1 underwent palatoplasty at significantly younger ages than Group 2 (p < 0.01). A statistically significant difference(p < 0.01) was found between the two groups of patients on comparison of cephalometric parameters such as SNA, ANB, CoA, NperpA ANS-PNS, N-ANS, N-Me, Witt's (AO-BO). Group 2 had more positive cephalometric values as compared to Group 1, thereby implying that there was less incidence of midfacial hypoplasia in patients treated at the age of 18-20 months. Between the types of palatoplasty techniques within Group 2, i.e., Bardach two-flap and von Langenbeck, there was no statistical difference found in the post-opertative cephalometric values, i.e., SNA, ANB, CoA, ANS-PNS, N-ANS, N-Me, Witt's (AO-BO) except for Nperp-A, which showed a statistical difference (p = 0.03). Within the limitations of the study which is only a single center experience it seems that palatal closure should be carried out at 18-20 months of age for better midfacial growth, leading to decreased incidence of maxillary hypoplasia at a later stage in life. Repair at less than 18 months of age is also associated with mid-facial hypoplasia.