scholarly journals Comparative outcome assessment between secondary and tertiary alveolar cleft grafting

2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
AF Sadakah ◽  
Fattah Abdel ◽  
Kassaby El
2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 6
Author(s):  
Robertus Arian Datusanantyo ◽  
Magda Rosalina Hutagalung ◽  
Sitti Rizaliyana

Background: Cleft lip and/or palate is the most common craniofacial congenital anomaly encountered by the plastic surgeon. Both reconstruction and outcome assessment are challenging. This study aimed to assess the outcome of unilateral cleft lip repair in the Surabaya CLP Center.Methods: All patients who underwent unilateral cleft lip repair in 2017 were included in the study. Those without complete photographs at minimally 52 weeks after surgery were excluded. The photographs of patients taken at least one-year post-surgery were assessed using a modified cleft lip evaluation profile (MCLEP) index. The data were then analyzed using statistical software.Results: There were 38 subjects included in the study. There was no significant difference in the final scores obtained based on completeness of the cleft lip and the presence of alveolar cleft. The total nose score was significantly better in the left side cleft (p = 0.002). When palate cleft was absent, the total lip score (p = 0.038), the total nose score (p = 0.008), and total score (p = 0.000) were also significantly better.Conclusions: The unilateral cleft lip repair in CLP Center Surabaya yielded good and symmetrically acceptable results. The study failed to observe the different outcomes of unilateral cleft lip repair based on completeness of the cleft lip and the presence of alveolar cleft. However, the unilateral cleft lip repair outcome was significantly better in the absence of palate cleft.


2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 4-5

Abstract Different jurisdictions use the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) for different purposes, and this article reviews a specific jurisdictional definition in the Province of Ontario of catastrophic impairment that incorporates the AMA Guides. In Ontario, a whole person impairment (WPI) exceeding 54% or a mental or behavioral impairment of Class 4 or 5 qualifies the individual for catastrophic benefits, and individuals who do not meet the test receive a lesser benefit. By inference, this establishes a parity threshold among dissimilar injuries and dissimilar outcome assessment scales for benefits. In Ontario, the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) identifies patients who have a high probability of death or of severely disabled survival. The GCS recognizes gradations of vegetative state and disability, but translating the gradations for rating individual impairment on ordinal scales into a method of assessing percentage impairments cannot be done reliably, as explained in the AMA Guides, Fifth Edition. The AMA Guides also notes that mental and behavioral impairment in Class 4 (marked impairment) or 5 (extreme impairment) indicates “catastrophic impairment” by significantly impeding useful functioning (Class 4) or significantly impeding useful functioning and implying complete dependency on another person for care (Class 5). Translating the AMA Guides guidelines into ordinal scales cannot be done reliably.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anand Kumar ◽  
Rohit Bhatia ◽  
Gautam Sharma ◽  
Dhanlika Dhanlika ◽  
Vishnubhatla Sreenivas ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 417-424
Author(s):  
Omar Osman ◽  
Ibrahim Kamel ◽  
Ahmed Elshereif ◽  
Ahmed Mohamed ◽  
Amr Magdy

2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822097897
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Dettori ◽  
Daniel C. Norvell ◽  
Jens R. Chapman

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document