scholarly journals Speech and Audiology Outcomes Following Single-stage Versus Early 2-stage Cleft Palate Repair

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 56-57
Author(s):  
Sun T. Hsieh ◽  
William Y. Zhu ◽  
Tzyynong Liou ◽  
December Deal ◽  
Jiwon Sarah Crowley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cleft Palate ◽  
Single Stage ◽  
Stage Versus ◽  
Cleft Palate Repair ◽  
Palate Repair

Risk of Malocclusion Among Patients Undergoing Single-Stage Versus Two-Stage Cleft Palate Repair

2022 ◽  
pp. 105566562110449
Author(s):  
Hilary McCrary ◽  
Vanessa Torrecillas ◽  
Sarah Hatch Pollard ◽  
Dave S. Collingridge ◽  
Duane Yamashiro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cleft Palate ◽  
Outcome Measure ◽  
Single Stage ◽  
Stage Versus ◽  
Class Iii ◽  
Class Iii Malocclusion ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Cleft Palate Repair ◽  
Palate Repair

Objective Evaluate impact of single-stage versus staged palate repair on the risk of developing malocclusion among patients with cleft palate (CP). Design Retrospective cohort study 2000–2016 Setting Academic, tertiary children’s hospital. Patients Patients undergoing CP repair between 1999–2015. Interventions CP repair, categorized as either single-stage or staged. Main Outcome Measure Time to development of Class III malocclusion. Results 967 patients were included; 60.1% had a two-stage CP repair, and 39.9% had single-stage. Malocclusion was diagnosed in 28.2% of patients. In the model examining all patients at ≤5 years ( n = 659), patients who were not white had a higher risk of malocclusion (HR 2.46, p = 0.004) and staged repair was not protective against malocclusion (HR 0.98, p = 0.91). In all patients >5 years ( n = 411), higher Veau classification and more recent year of birth were significantly associated with higher hazard rates ( p < 0.05). Two-staged repair was not protective against developing malocclusion (HR 0.86, p = 0.60). In the model examining patients with staged repair ≤5 years old ( n = 414), higher age at hard palate closure was associated with reduced malocclusion risk (HR 0.67, p < 0.001) and patients who were not white had increased risk (HR 2.56, p = 0.01). In patients with staged repair >5 years old, more recent birth year may be associated with a higher risk of malocclusion (HR 1.06, p = 0.06) while syndrome may be associated with lower risk of malocclusion diagnosis (HR 0.46, p = 0.07). Conclusion Our data suggests that staged CP repair is not protective against developing Class III malocclusion.

Speech and Audiology Outcomes After Single-Stage Versus Early 2-Stage Cleft Palate Repair

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiwon Sarah Crowley ◽  
Tzyynong L. Friesen ◽  
Rodney A. Gabriel ◽  
Sun Hsieh ◽  
Amanda Wacenske ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cleft Palate ◽  
Single Stage ◽  
Stage Versus ◽  
Cleft Palate Repair ◽  
Palate Repair

Adult Quality of Life Post Cleft Palate Repair

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 909-914
Author(s):  
Rachel Skladman ◽  
Lynn Marty Grames ◽  
Gary Skolnick ◽  
Dennis C. Nguyen ◽  
Sybill D. Naidoo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cleft Palate ◽  
Cleft Palate Repair ◽  
Palate Repair

Optimizing Outcomes After Cleft Palate Repair: Design and Implementation of a Perioperative Clinical Care Pathway

2021 ◽  
pp. 105566562110174
Author(s):  
Thomas R. Cawthorn ◽  
Anna R. Todd ◽  
Nina Hardcastle ◽  
Adam O. Spencer ◽  
A. Robertson Harrop ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Cleft Palate ◽  
Care Pathway ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Oral Intake ◽  
Opioid Consumption ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Cleft Palate Repair ◽  
Palate Repair ◽  
Clinical Care Pathway

Objective: To evaluate the development process and clinical impact of implementing a standardized perioperative clinical care pathway for cleft palate repair. Design: Medical records of patients undergoing primary cleft palate repair prior to pathway implementation were retrospectively reviewed as a historical control group (N = 40). The historical cohort was compared to a prospectively collected group of patients who were treated according to the pathway (N = 40). Patients: Healthy, nonsyndromic infants undergoing primary cleft palate repair at a tertiary care pediatric hospital. Interventions: A novel, standardized pathway was created through an iterative process, combining literature review with expert opinion and discussions with institutional stakeholders. The pathway integrated multimodal analgesia throughout the perioperative course and included intraoperative bilateral maxillary nerve blocks. Perioperative protocols for preoperative fasting, case timing, antiemetics, intravenous fluid management, and postoperative diet advancement were standardized. Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcomes include: (1) length of hospital stay, (2) cumulative opioid consumption, (3) oral intake postoperatively. Results: Patients treated according to the pathway had shorter mean length of stay (31 vs 57 hours, P < .001), decreased cumulative morphine consumption (77 vs 727 μg/kg, P < .001), shorter time to initiate oral intake (9.3 vs 22 hours, P = .01), and greater volume of oral intake in first 24 hours postoperatively (379 vs 171 mL, P < .001). There were no differences in total anesthesia time, total surgical time, or complication rates between the control and treatment groups. Conclusions: Implementation of a standardized perioperative clinical care pathway for primary cleft palate repair is safe, feasible, and associated with reduced length of stay, reduced opioid consumption, and improved oral intake postoperatively.

Fibrin Tissue Sealant as an Adjunct to Cleft Palate Repair

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 1164-1166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Wu ◽  
Alexander Wilson ◽  
Roberto Travieso ◽  
Derek M. Steinbacher
Keyword(s):  
Cleft Palate ◽  
Cleft Palate Repair ◽  
Tissue Sealant ◽  
Palate Repair

Is Risk of Secondary Surgery for Oronasal Fistula Following Primary Cleft Palate Repair Associated With Hospital Case Volume and Cost-to-Charge Ratio?

2021 ◽  
Vol 58 (5) ◽  
pp. 603-611
Author(s):  
Giap H. Vu ◽  
Christopher L. Kalmar ◽  
Carrie E. Zimmerman ◽  
Laura S. Humphries ◽  
Jordan W. Swanson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cleft Palate ◽  
Outcome Measure ◽  
Charge Ratio ◽  
Fistula Repair ◽  
Case Volume ◽  
Secondary Surgery ◽  
Hospital Case ◽  
Oronasal Fistula ◽  
Cleft Palate Repair ◽  
Palate Repair

Objective: This study assesses the association between risk of secondary surgery for oronasal fistula following primary cleft palate repair and 2 hospital characteristics—cost-to-charge ratio (RCC) and case volume of cleft palate repair. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: This study utilized the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database, which consists of clinical and resource-utilization data from >49 hospitals in the United States. Patients and Participants: Patients undergoing primary cleft palate repair from 2004 to 2009 were abstracted from the PHIS database and followed up for oronasal fistula repair between 2004 and 2015. Main Outcome Measure(s): The primary outcome measure was whether patients underwent oronasal fistula repair after primary cleft palate repair. Results: Among 5745 patients from 45 institutions whom met inclusion criteria, 166 (3%) underwent oronasal fistula repair within 6 to 11 years of primary cleft palate repair. Primary palatoplasty at high-RCC facilities was associated with a higher rate of subsequent oronasal fistula repair (odds ratio [OR] = 1.84 [1.32-2.56], adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.81 [1.28-2.59]; P ≤ .001). Likelihood of surgery for oronasal fistula was independent of hospital case volume (OR = 0.83 [0.61-1.13], P = .233; AOR = 0.86 [0.62-1.20], P = .386). Patients with complete unilateral or bilateral cleft palate were more likely to receive oronasal fistula closure compared to those with unilateral-incomplete cleft palate (AOR = 2.09 [1.27-3.56], P = .005; AOR = 3.14 [1.80-5.58], P < .001). Conclusions: Subsequent need for oronasal fistula repair, while independent of hospital case volume for cleft palate repair, increased with increasing hospital RCC. Our study also corroborates complete cleft palate and cleft lip as risk factors for oronasal fistula.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document