Early one-stage repair of complete unilateral cleft lip and palate

Comparative study on cleft palate morphology after passive presurgical plate therapy in unilateral cleft lip and palate

BACKGROUND

Presurgical plate therapy has been widely accepted as a treatment prior to palatal cleft closure. The effects of passive presurgical plate therapy on cleft morphology prior to single-stage unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) repair were quantified.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We compared the dimensions of cleft width and cleft area (true cleft and palatal cleft) measured preoperatively at 2 European cleft centers. Center A performed single-stage UCLP repair in 8-month-old infants without any presurgical orthopedic treatment. Center B initiated passive presurgical plate therapy immediately after the birth of the neonates, followed by single-stage UCLP repair at 8 months of age.

RESULTS

We included 28 patients with complete UCLP from Center A and 12 patients from Center B. The average anterior width of the true cleft before surgery was significantly smaller in infants at Center B than that in Center A (p = 0.001) with 95% confidence interval of (1.8, 5.7) mm, but the average posterior width was similar in the 2 groups. The mean presurgical true cleft area amounted to 106.8 mm2 (SD = 42.4 mm2) at Center A and 71.9 mm2 (SD = 32.2 mm2) at Center B, with a confidence interval for the difference being (9.8, 60.1) mm2. This corresponded to a 32.7% reduction of the true cleft area when passive presurgical plate therapy was used for the first 8 months of the infants' life.

CONCLUSION

Passive presurgical plate therapy in UCLP significantly reduced the cleft area. Implications for the subsequent surgical outcome might depend on the surgical technique used.

Evidence-Based Practices in Cleft Palate Surgery

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After studying this article, the participant should be able to: (1) Understand the embryologic origins, cause, and incidence of cleft palate. (2) Review the anatomy and common classifications of cleft palate and associated defects. (3) Describe surgical techniques for palatoplasty and understand their respective indications. (4) Gain an awareness of general perioperative care considerations, timing of repair, and risk factors for and operative mitigation of complications.

SUMMARY

Cleft palate affects 0.1 to 1.1 per 1000 births, with a higher incidence in certain ethnic groups but affecting both sexes equally. Cleft palate may occur in isolation or in combination with cleft lip or in association with other congenital anomalies including various syndromes. The goals of cleft palate repair are to anatomically separate the oral and nasal cavities for normal feeding and improved speech and minimize the risk of oronasal fistulas, velopharyngeal dysfunction, and disruption of facial growth. This review discusses the incidence, causes, and classification of cleft palate; surgical techniques for palatoplasty and perioperative patient management; and complications of palatoplasty.

Craniofacial Growth at Age 6–11 Years after One-Stage Cleft Lip and Palate Repair: A Retrospective Comparative Study with Historical Controls

Background: Primary alveolar bone grafting inhibits craniofacial growth. However, its effect on craniofacial growth in one-stage cleft lip and palate protocols is unknown. This study investigated whether primary alveolar bone grafting performed during one-stage unilateral cleft lip and palate repair negatively affects growth up to 6–11 years old. Methods: The craniofacial growth, dental arch relationship and palatal morphology at 6–11 years old in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate were compared retrospectively. Two cohorts after a one-stage protocol without (Group A) and with (Group B) primary bone grafting at the same center were compared. Further, cephalometric measurements for growth were compared with an external cohort of a one-stage protocol and a heathy control. Results: Group A comprised 16 patients assessed at 6.8 years (SD 0.83), and Group B comprised 15 patients assessed at 9 years (SD 2.0). Cephalometric measurements indicated similar sagittal maxillary growth deficits and a significant deviation in maxillary inclination in both groups compared to the healthy group. Moderate to severe changes in palatal morphology were observed in 70% of the members in both groups. Conclusion: Omitting primary alveolar bone grafting under the one-stage protocol with two-flap palatoplasty studied did not improve growth at 6–11 years. The results implicate two-flap palatoplasty with secondary healing as having greater adverse effects on growth than primary alveolar bone grafting. Dental and palatal morphology was considerably compromised regardless of primary alveolar bone grafting.

Midface Growth Potential in Unoperated Clefts: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ABSTRACT

Competing hypotheses for the development of midface hypoplasia in patients with cleft lip and palate include both theories of an intrinsic restricted growth potential of the midface and extrinsic surgical disruption of maxillary growth centers and scar growth restriction secondary to palatoplasty. The following meta-analysis aims to better understand the intrinsic growth potential of the midface in a patient with cleft lip and palate unaffected by surgical correction. A systematic review of studies reporting cephalometric measurements in patients with unoperated and operated unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP), bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP), and isolated cleft palate (ICP) abstracted SNA and ANB angles, age at cephalometric analysis, syndromic diagnosis, and patient demographics. Age and Region-matched controls without cleft palate were used for comparison. SNA angle for unoperated UCLP (84.5 ± 4.0°), BCLP (85.3 ± 2.8°), and ICP (79.2 ± 4.2°) were statistically different than controls (82.4 ± 3.5°), (all P ≤ 0.001). SNA angles for operated UCLP (76.2 ± 4.2°), BCLP (79.8 ± 3.6°), and ICP (79.0 ± 4.3°) groups were statistically smaller than controls (all P ≤ 0.001). SNA angle in unoperated ICP (n = 143) was equivalent to operated ICP patients (79.2 ± 4.2° versus 79.0 ± 4.3° P = 0.78). No unoperated group mean SNA met criteria for midface hypoplasia (SNA < 80). Unoperated UCLP/BLCP exhibit a more robust growth potential of the maxilla, whereas operated patients demonstrate stunted growth compared to normal phenotype. Unoperated ICP demonstrates restricted growth in both operated and unoperated patients. As such, patients with UCLP/BCLP differ from patients with ICP and the factors affecting midface growth may differ.Level of Evidence: IV.

Single Stage Cleft Lip and Palate Repair In Toddlers: Retrospective Review of Feasibility and Operative Experience

In children with cleft lip and palate (CLP), we aimed to compare a single-stage surgery group or all in one (AIO) approach with a 2-stage surgery group (2-SSG) of 18 and 12 toddlers, respectively. A retrospective review of 30 patients with CLP was conducted between 2007 and 2019. All in one procedure was performed at 12 to 24 months and 2-SSG patients had lip and primary nasal correction at 3 to 9 months, followed by palatoplasty and myringotomies at 12 to 16 months. In the AIO group, 13 (72.2%) patients had unilateral CLP, while 5 (27.8%) had bilateral CLP, which is comparable to the 2-SSG who had 8 (66.7%) unilateral CLP, 3 (25%) bilateral CLP, and 1 (8.3%) incomplete CL with submucous CP. The 2-SSG had a 30 minutes longer cumulative operative time and increased blood loss that was not statistically significant (P = 0.149 and 0.219, respectively). The AIO group had a slightly longer intubation (0.67 versus 0.33 day) and pediatric intensive care unit admission duration of 1.72 versus 1.67 days, (P = 0.427, 0.927), respectively. Total hospitalization time was significantly shorter with the AIO (8 versus 10.67 days, P = 0.016). The duration of postoperative pediatric intensive care unit and need for supplemental oxygen were higher in the AIO (38.9% versus 8.3%, P = 0.064). The “AIO” approach of lip, nasal, and palate surgery from 12 to 24 months completes early surgical care in a single operation. However, based on our review, this protocol must be selective; children with comorbidities or syndromes are advised to be exempted and operated in stages.

How to Get Consistently Good Results in Cleft Lip Repair

This article serves as a practical guide for plastic surgeons focusing on repair of primary cleft lip and nasal deformity. We discuss the key anatomic disruption present in cleft lip and nasal deformity and the goals of primary repair. In addition, our preferred surgical technique for unilateral and bilateral cleft lip and nasal deformity is summarized along with technical pearls and pitfalls.

A Meta-Analysis of Palatal Repair Timing

ABSTRACT

Developing midface hypoplasia is common after palatoplasty and has been hypothesized to be influenced by the timing of hard palate repair. This meta-analysis assesses the risk of developing midface hypoplasia based on age at hard palate repair. A Pubmed PRISMA systematic review and meta-analysis was completed for literature focused on palatoplasty and midface hypoplasia published between 1970 and 2019. Cephalometric data were extracted and categorized by age at hard palate repair: <6, 7 to 12, 13 to 18, 19 to 24, and 25 to 83 months. Analysis of these groups and a control were compared using independent T-tests and Spearman correlation coefficients. SNA angles for each group were 77.9 ± 3.1° (<6 months), 77.7 ± 4.2° (7-12 months), 78.7 ± 4.2° (13-18 months), 75.1 ± 4.2° (19-24 months), 75.5 ± 4.8° (25-83 months), and were statistically different than the control group 82.4 ± 3.5° (P < 0.0001). Hard palate repair at 13 to 18 months had a statistically significant greater SNA angle than all other groups except for the repair at <6 months group (P = 0.074). As age at hard palate closure increased beyond 18 months, the SNA decreased, corresponding to a more hypoplastic maxilla (Spearman's correlation coefficient -0.381, P = 0.015). Analysis suggests that younger age at the time of repair is less likely to create in midface hypoplasia in adulthood. Minimizing midface hypoplasia in cleft palate patients by optimizing algorithms of care is a practical way to decrease the burden of disease on patients, families and medical systems. Further studies are needed to evaluate the role of technique on outcomes.Level of Evidence: IV.

Lessons from American Board of Plastic Surgery Maintenance of Certification Tracer Data: A 16-Year Review of Clinical Practice Patterns and Evidence-Based Medicine in Cleft Palate Repair

BACKGROUND

As a component of the Maintenance of Certification process from 2003 to 2019, the American Board of Plastic Surgery tracked 20 common plastic surgery operations. By evaluating the data collected over 16 years, the authors are able to examine the practice patterns of pediatric/craniofacial surgeons in the United States.

METHODS

Cumulative tracer data for cleft palate repair was reviewed as of April of 2014 and September of 2019. Evidence-based medicine articles were reviewed. Results were tabulated in three categories: pearls, or topics that were covered in both the tracer data and evidence-based medicine articles; topics that were covered by evidence-based medicine articles but not collected in the tracer data; and topics that were covered in tracer data but not addressed in evidence-based medicine articles.

RESULTS

Two thousand eight hundred fifty cases had been entered as of September of 2019. With respect to pearls, pushback, von Langenbeck, and Furlow repairs all declined in use, whereas intravelar veloplasty increased. For items not in the tracer, the quality of studies relating to analgesia is among the highest of all areas of study regarding cleft palate repair. In terms of variables collected by the tracer but not studied, in 2019, 41 percent of patients received more than 1 day of antibiotics.

CONCLUSIONS

This article provides a review of cleft palate tracer data and summarizes the research in the field. Review of the tracer data enables cleft surgeons to compare their outcomes to national norms and provides an opportunity for them to consider modifications that may enhance their practice.

Early or delayed palatoplasty in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate patients? A systematic review of the effects on maxillary growth

The aim of this study was to review the effects of early and late hard palate repair on maxillary growth. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, Cochrane Library CENTRAL databases, OpenGrey, Google Scholar, and Clinical Trials were searched using a PICO strategy, with terms related to unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) and timing of repair. Methodological quality evaluation was carried out using the Fowkes and Fulton guidelines, and quality (or certainty) of evidence and strength of recommendations were evaluated using GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation). Five retrospective and non-randomized studies were included in the study. Folkes and Fulton assessment showed a high risk of bias in all articles and very low levels of certainty (GRADE). The results showed conflicting findings for comparisons of the effects of timing of repair of hard palate in UCLP. Two studies presented better maxillary growth in a group operated on later (18 months after birth), two presented no differences between the results, and another presented better results in the group operated on earlier than 18 months of age. At this point, it cannot be proven or refuted that postponing hard palate surgery brings benefits for maxillary growth. Studies included in this review did not show similar conclusions. Randomized clinical trials present some ethical issues that make them difficult to perform.

Cephalometric evaluation after two-stage palatoplasty combined with a Hotz plate: a comparative study between the modified Furlow and Widmaier-Perko methods

The effects on craniofacial growth of two different soft palate repair techniques in two-stage palatoplasty were investigated. This was a retrospective, cross-sectional cohort study of 68 children with non-syndromic, complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Thirty-four patients were treated with the modified Furlow method (F-group) and the remaining 34 with the Widmaier-Perko method (P-group). Craniofacial growth was assessed by analyzing 12 angular and 12 linear measurements on lateral cephalograms. Composite facial diagrams from the two groups were compared with those of a control non-cleft group. Angular and linear measurements did not differ significantly between the two groups, implying that the craniofacial morphology was not affected by the difference in soft palate repair technique. However, small differences in anterior nasal spine and posterior nasal spine were found in cleft patients compared with controls. These findings suggest that the modified Furlow and Widmaier-Perko methods have a similar impact on craniofacial growth. Considering speech function, the modified Furlow method provides better craniofacial growth and speech function. However, the long-term effects of both methods on craniofacial growth after growth cessation remain to be determined.

The Burden of Care for Children with Unilateral Cleft Lip: A Systematic Review of Revision Surgery

Objective

To identify the average rate of revision surgery following cleft lip repair.

Design

PubMed, CINAHL, and SCOPUS were searched from database inception through March 2013 using the search terms cleft lip and surgery. Two investigators independently screened all abstracts and determined eligibility from review of full manuscripts using prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Strengths and limitation of the studies were assessed, followed by qualitative synthesis. The I2 test of homogeneity was performed to determine if meta-analysis was appropriate.

Results

The search identified 3034 articles. Of those, 45 met the inclusion criteria. Studies were primarily case series and retrospective cohort studies, with only one randomized controlled trial. One-third of studies (n = 15) did not describe how the study sample was selected. Follow-up duration was not reported in one-fourth of studies (n = 11). Nasolabial aesthetics were reported in 44% of studies (n = 20). The incidence of revision surgery ranged from 0% to 100%. Meta-analysis was precluded because of study heterogeneity (I2 = 97%).

Conclusions

The average incidence of cleft lip revision surgery cannot be estimated from the published literature, due to significant heterogeneity among existing reports and limited study quality. To provide valid information about the burden of care for unilateral cleft lip, a population-based or multicenter longitudinal cohort study is necessary; this study should measure the number of surgical procedures and the patient's aesthetic outcomes.

Surgical treatment of cleft lip

We performed a systematic review of the literature on the surgical treatment of cleft lip, emphasizing the prevalence, complications associated with the treatment and the points of disagreement between authors. We conducted a literature cross-sectional search that analyzed publications in books, articles and on the databases SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online, PubMed, of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. We conclude that: 1) the severity of the cleft will indicate the technique presenting more advantages; 2) the different approaches indicate that there is no consensus on the optimal technique; and 3) the surgeon experience contributes to choosing the best option.

Timing of palate repair affecting growth in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the facial morphology characteristics of patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCCLPs) who had undergone cleft palate repair at different times.

DESIGN

This study included 46 nonsyndromic UCCLPs and 38 age and sex matched non-cleft patients. 35 cephalometric measurements were used to evaluate the facial morphology. Student's t-test, one-way ANOVA and rank sum tests were used for comparison. Significant difference was defined at 95% level.

RESULTS

The data showed that UCCLPs who had palatoplasty between 7 and 12 years had greater PMP-A, PMP-ANS, Ba-ANS, Ba-A, Ba-N-ANS than those operated on before 4 years of age, and UCCLPs who had palatoplasty at 4-12 years had smaller Y-axis angle than those operated on before 4 years of age.

CONCLUSIONS

The maxillary sagittal length increased gradually as von Langenbeck repair was delayed. UCCLPs who underwent palate repair using von Langenbeck technique at 4-12 years had a more protrusive maxilla and less clockwise rotated mandible than those repaired before 4 years. UCCLPs operated using the von Langenbeck technique at 4-12 years had better head-face morphology than those operated on before 4 years. There was no difference in facial morphology among UCCLPs with palate repair at 4-12 years.

Craniofacial morphology in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate patients consecutively treated with 1-stage repair of the cleft

OBJECTIVE

To retrospectively evaluate the craniofacial morphology of children with a complete unilateral cleft lip and palate treated with a 1-stage simultaneous cleft repair performed in the first year of life.

METHODS

Cephalograms and extraoral profile photographs of 61 consecutively treated patients (42 boys, 19 girls) who had been operated on at 9.2 (SD, 2.0) months by a single experienced surgeon were analyzed at 11.4 (SD, 1.5) years. The noncleft control group comprised 81 children (43 boys and 38 girls) of the same ethnicity at the age of 10.4 (SD, 0.5) years.

RESULTS

In children with cleft, the maxilla and mandible were retrusive; the palatal and mandibular planes were more open, and sagittal maxillomandibular relationship was less favorable in comparison to noncleft control subjects. Soft tissues in patients with cleft reflected retrusive morphology of hard tissues--subnasal and supramental regions were less convex, profile was flatter, and nasolabial angle was more acute relative to those of the control subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

Craniofacial morphology after 1-stage repair was deviated in comparison with noncleft control subjects. However, the degree of deviation was comparable with that found after treatment with alternative surgical protocols.

Sagittal maxillary growth in children with unilateral cleft of the lip, alveolus and palate at the age of 10 years: an intercentre comparison

OBJECTIVE

Aim of this intercentre study was to compare sagittal facial growth in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate treated with different surgical protocols. A first evaluation had been carried out at the age of 6 years, now the patients have been re-evaluated at the age of 10 years.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

22 patients had been analyzed in centre 1, 32 patients in centre 2. All patients had presurgical orthopaedics. Centre 1 had lip repair at the age of 3 months and one-stage palatal closure with 1 year. Centre 2 had lip repair with 6 months, soft palate repair at 12 and hard palate repair at the age of 30 months. Sagittal growth was evaluated on lateral cephalograms. As control, data of 35 non-cleft children were used. Statistical analysis was carried out with student's t-test, multiple comparisons with Bonferroni.

RESULTS

There was considerably normal sagittal facial growth in centre 1, with tendency of forward growth of the mandible. In centre 2 there was a slight decrease in sagittal maxillary and mandibular growth with unchanged intergnathic relation. There was no statistically significant difference in sagittal growth between the centres. A re-evaluation has to be carried out after the final growth spurt.