Original Articles
Choi, Katherine J. BA; Wlodarczyk, Jordan R. MD, MS; Nagengast, Eric S. MD, MPH; Wolfswinkel, Erik MD; Munabi, Naikhoba C.O. MD, MPH; Yao, Caroline MD, MS; Magee, William P. III DDS, MD
∗Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California
†Division of Plastic and Maxillofacial Surgery, Children's Hospital of Los Angeles
‡Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
§Operation Smile, Inc., Virginia Beach, VA
||Shriners Hospital for Children, Pasadena, CA.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Eric S. Nagengast, MD, MPH, University of Southern California, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 1510 San Pablo St Suite 415 Los Angeles, CA 90033; E-mail: [emailprotected]
Received 16 July, 2020
Accepted 14 October, 2020
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Supplemental digital contents are available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal's Web site (www.jcraniofacialsurgery.com).
Journal of Craniofacial Surgery 32(3):p 902-906, May 2021. | DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000007262
- Buy
- SDC
Abstract
Midface hypoplasia is one of the most significant sequelae of cleft lip and/or palate surgery. A complete understanding of the rate of orthognathic surgery across varying cleft phenotypes is a powerful tool for educating patients and families as to the treatment course that the patient will incur during their lifetime. Understanding the average rates of orthognathic intervention also can act to develop metrics for outcome evaluation with different treatment protocols. Attempting to identify the average rates of orthognathic intervention, the authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis by combining studies from 1987 to 2016 describing the frequency of orthognathic intervention on the different cleft phenotypes as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included identification of surgical protocol, age of patient at orthognathic intervention, and the method by which patients were evaluated for orthognathic intervention. The rate of orthognathic surgery was 38.1% for bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP), 30.2% for unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP), 4.4% for isolated cleft palate (ICP), and 1.8% for patients with isolated cleft lip (ICL). 71% (n = 10) reported using lateral cephalograms for orthognathic surgery evaluation and only one of those studies reported specific objective cephalometric measurements for orthognathic intervention. Our findings demonstrated that BCLP possessed the highest rate of orthognathic intervention followed by UCLP, ICP, and ICL. ICP and ICL both possessed low rates of orthognathic intervention. By sharing our findings, the authors hope to provide a useful tool for informing patients’ families as to their risk of needing orthognathic intervention.