Global Prevalence and Burden of Orofacial Clefts: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Orofacial clefts, in particular cleft lip and cleft palate, are among the most common congenital anomalies. Despite guidelines recommending early surgical correction, a global backlog of untreated patients persists. This has made orofacial clefts an attractive target for global cleft care initiatives. The most recent global burden of orofacial clefts was estimated to be 529,758.92 disability-adjusted life years (95% uncertainty interval: 362,492.88-798,419.69 disability-adjusted life years), whereas the global prevalence of orofacial clefts was estimated to be 4.6 million (95% uncertainty interval: 3.8-5.7 million). An inverse relationship exists between the Sociodemographic Index and the burden of orofacial clefts. Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East/North Africa, and South Asia are the regions carrying the most significant burden of orofacial clefts. This manuscript provides updated estimates of the global burden and prevalence of orofacial clefts, acting as a guide to direct future investments, resources, and initiatives from individuals and organizations engaged in global cleft care delivery with the goal of building sustainable cleft care capacity where it is needed the most.

Long-term treatment outcome of patients with complete bilateral cleft lip and palate: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Patients with cleft lip and palate have functional and esthetic impairment and typically require multiple interventions in their life. Long-term evaluation following a treatment protocol, especially for patients with complete bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP), is important but was rarely reported in the literature.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on all patients with complete BCLP born between 1995 and 2002 and treated at our center. Inclusion criteria were having adequate medical records and receiving continuous multidisciplinary team care at least until 20 years of age. Exclusion criteria were lack of regular follow-up and congenital syndromic abnormalities. The medical records and photos were reviewed, and facial bone development was evaluated using cephalometric analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 122 patients were included, with a mean age of 22.1 years at the final evaluation in this study. Primary one-stage cheiloplasty was performed in 91.0% of the patients, and 9.0% underwent two-stage repair with an initial adhesion cheiloplasty. All patients underwent two-flap palatoplasty at an average of 12.3 months. Surgical intervention for velopharyngeal insufficiency was required in 59.0% of patients. Revisional lip/nose surgery was performed in 31.1% during growing age and in 64.8% after skeletal maturity. Orthognathic surgery was applied in 60.7% of patients with retruded midface, of which 97.3% underwent two-jaw surgery. The average number of operations to complete the treatment was 5.9 per patient.

CONCLUSION

Patients with complete BCLP remain the most challenging group to treat among the cleft. This review revealed certain suboptimal results, and modifications have been made to the treatment protocol. Longitudinal follow-up and periodic assessment help to establish an ideal therapeutic strategy and improve overall cleft care.

Quality Assurance Standards for Outreach Cleft Lip and Cleft Palate Repair Programs in Low-Resource Settings

BACKGROUND

Comprehensive cleft care is a multidisciplinary team endeavor. While untreated craniofacial conditions have multiple undue repercussions, cleft care in outreach settings can be fraught with significant perioperative morbidity risks.

AIM

Propose updated quality assurance standards addressing logistic and operational considerations essential for the delivery of safe and effective cleft lip and /or palate (CL/P) care in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) settings.

METHODS

Based on American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association (ACPA) quality standards, published literature, published protocols by Global Smile Foundation (GSF), and the senior author's three-decade experience, updated standards for outreach cleft care were synthesized.

RESULTS

Ten axes for safe, effective, and sustainable cleft lip and palate care delivery in underserved settings were generated: 1) site assessment, 2) establishment of community partnerships, 3) team composition and credentialing, 4) team training and mission preparation, 5) implementation of quality assurance guidelines, operative safety checklists, and emergency response protocols, 6) immediate and long-term postoperative care, 7) medical record keeping, 8) outcomes evaluation, 9) education, and 10) capacity building and sustainability. Subsequent analysis further characterized essential components of each of those ten axes to delineate experience derived and evidence-based recommendations.

DISCUSSION

Quality assurance guidelines are essential for the safe delivery of comprehensive cleft care to patients with CL/P in any setting. Properly designed surgical outreach programs relying on honest community partnerships can be effectively used as vehicles for local capacity building and the establishment of sustainable cleft care ecosystems.

Emergency Response Protocols for Overseas Outreach Settings: Global Smile Foundation Strategy

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) aim to alleviate unmet global disease burden and promote collaboration between visiting and host countries. Well-executed emergency response protocols are foundational to providing safe and quality care in an unpredictable global setting. Global Smile Foundation (GSF) instituted a protocol in 2012 based on over three decades of cleft care experience. Here, we update this protocol and provide information on how to address special circumstances such as humanitarian crises and disease outbreaks. The GSF response protocol was developed in conjunction with surgeons, anesthesiologists, nurses, and administrators to ensure all team members are adequately prepared to respond to emergency situations in global outreach. This protocol provides information on pre-departure preparation, onsite setup, operative precautions, and post-departure debriefings. Emphasis is placed on a standardized, reproducible workflow that accounts for necessary site-specific adjustments. Strategies include emergency simulations, site-specific safety checklists, standardized operating room protocols, and well-defined individual responsibilities. The authors also provide anticipatory guidance in addressing unexpected circumstances, such as disease outbreak and natural disaster, during global outreach. In conclusion, a proactive and systematic approach to emergency response and prevention is vital to minimizing morbidity and mortality during surgical outreach initiatives. The GSF protocol represents a reproducible approach that other organizations can adopt and adapt to their unique needs.

Cleft Care Readability: Can Patients Access Helpful Online Resources?

OBJECTIVE

The present study identifies and analyzes online patient resources for cleft lip with or without cleft palate to survey the online educational landscape relative to the recommended difficulty set by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and American Medical Association (AMA).

METHODS

An internet search of "cleft palate," "cleft lip," and 12 similar inputs were entered into a search engine. The first 50 links for each search term were identified, collected, and reviewed individually for relevance and accessibility. The content of the websites was analyzed with Readability Studio Version 2019.1. The following readability metrics were utilized in this study: (1) Coleman-Liau (grade levels), (2) New Dale-Chall, (3) Flesch-Kincaid, (4) Flesch Reading Ease, (5) FORCAST, (6) Fry, (7) Gunning Fog, (8) New Fog Count, (9) Raygor Readability Estimate, and (10) Simple Measure of Gobbledygook.

RESULTS

In no combination of search terms did any collection of links provide information within the mid-seventh grade levels recommended by the NIH. The analysis of 143 unique websites in the "Cleft Palate" group showed a readability level appropriate to high school students. The analysis of 144 unique websites in the "Cleft Lip" group showed a readability level appropriate for eighth grade students with 6 months of class complete.

CONCLUSIONS

The information presented to patients on cleft care is too complex and well above the recommended 7th-grade reading level target set forth by the NIH and AMA, which hinders functional health literacy.

Outcome analysis of palatoplasty in various types of cleft palate

AIMS

To analyse the factors affecting clinical and functional outcome of Veau-Wardill-Kilner palatoplasty in various types of cleft palate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Demographic data were retrieved from case records and a detailed speech, language and hearing and an orthodontic analysis were carried out prospectively.

RESULTS

Mean age at operation was 2.7 years; whereas mean age at the time of evaluation was 6 years. Most of the patients (43.3%, 13/30) had a bilateral cleft lip and palate. The postoperative fistula had developed in 31% (4/13) of the patients with bilateral clefts and in 17% (1/6) and 9% (1/11) of the patients with left unilateral and isolated cleft palate respectively (P<0.05). Eight per cent (2/24) of the patients operated before 2 years of age developed a fistula as compared to 66.6% (4/6) of the patients who had undergone a repair after 2 years of age (P<0.01). Severe speech abnormality was seen in 33.4% of the patients having postoperative fistula as compared to 16.6% of non-fistula patients (P<0.05). Derangement of speech was found in 66.6% of the patients who had undergone surgery after the age of 2 years as compared to the patients (13%, 3/24) undergoing correction before 2 years of age (P<0.05). Hearing loss was seen most commonly in patients with bilateral cleft palate as compared to the other varieties (P>0.05). Tympanic membrane (TM) abnormalities were also more common in bilateral cleft patients (P<0.05). Mean maxillary arch length, arch circumference and maxillary inter-canine and inter-molar width were significantly reduced as compared to the control group (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Socially acceptable quality of speech can be achieved in more than 85% of the patients. The postoperative fistula is associated with poor speech; bilateral cleft and older age being the risk factors for fistula formation. Many patients require audiological surveillance even when asymptomatic. Maxillary growth is impaired in all the patients despite early surgery.

Nasoalveolar molding: prevalence of cleft centers offering NAM and who seeks it

INTRODUCTION

Nasoalveolar molding (NAM) is a treatment option available for early cleft care. Despite the growing debate about the efficacy of nasoalveolar molding, questions remain regarding its prevalence and the demographic characteristics of families undergoing this technique prior to traditional cleft surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the number of teams currently offering nasoalveolar molding and to identify salient clinical and sociodemographic variables in infants and families who choose nasoalveolar molding compared with those who choose traditional cleft care across three well-established cleft centers.

RESULTS

Via phone surveys, 89% of the U.S. cleft teams contacted revealed that nasoalveolar molding is available at 37% of these centers. Chart reviews and phone correspondence with caregivers indicate that the average distance to the cleft center was 65.5 miles and caregiver age averaged 30.9 ± 5.7 years. Of families who chose nasoalveolar molding, 85% received total or partial insurance coverage. No difference in caregiver education, income, or distance to the clinic between treatment groups was found. On average, infants receiving nasoalveolar molding and cleft surgery had larger clefts and had more clinic visits than infants receiving traditional cleft surgery. Infants who were firstborn and those who did not have other siblings were more likely to receive nasoalveolar molding than were infants who were residing with other siblings.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently more than one-third of U.S. cleft centers offer nasoalveolar molding. Although the cleft size was larger in the nasoalveolar molding group, no treatment group differences in education, income, and distance to the clinic were found.