ABSTRACT
Presurgical infant orthopedic (PSIO) therapy has evolved in both its popularity and focus of treatment since its advent. Nasoalveolar molding, nasal elevators, the Latham appliance, lip taping, and passive plates are the modern treatment options offered by cleft teams. Many cleft surgeons also employ postsurgical nasal stenting (PSNS) after the primary lip repair procedure. The purpose of this study is to examine trends in current PSIO care as well as PSNS for the management of patients with cleft lip and palate. An electronic survey was distributed to cleft team coordinators listed by the American Cleft Palate Association. The survey reported on team setting, provider availability, PSIO offerings, contraindications, and use of PSNS. Descriptive statistics and analyses were performed using MS Excel and SPSS. A total of 102 survey responses were received. The majority of settings were children's specialty hospitals (66%) or university hospitals (27%). Presurgical infant orthopedics was offered by 86% of cleft teams, and the majority of those (68%) provided nasoalveolar molding. Nasal elevators and lip taping are offered at 44% and 53% of centers, respectively. Latham and passive plates are both offered at 5.5% of centers. Most centers had an orthodontist providing treatment. The majority of centers use PSNS (86%). Nasoalveolar molding is the most popular PSIO technique in North American cleft centers followed by the nasal elevator, suggesting that the nasal molding component of PSIO is of critical influence on current treatment practices.
Subject(s)
Cleft Lip , Cleft Palate , Orthopedic Procedures , Orthopedics , Infant , Child , Humans , United States , Cleft Palate/surgery , Cleft Lip/surgery , Orthopedic Procedures/methods , North AmericaABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of orthognathic surgery (OGS) in patients with craniofacial microsomia (CFM) who had previously undergone mandibular distraction osteogenesis (MDO). DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study was performed including all patients with CFM who were treated with OGS at a single institution between 1996 and 2019. The clinical records, operative reports, and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were reviewed. CBCT data before OGS (T1), immediately after OGS (T2), and at long-term follow-up (T3) were analyzed using Dolphin three-dimensional software to measure the occlusal cant and chin point deviation. RESULTS: The study included 12 patients with CFM who underwent OGS (6 underwent OGS without MDO and 6 underwent OGS after MDO). There was a statistically significant improvement in occlusal cant and chin point deviation in both groups postoperatively. Occlusal cant relapsed by a mean of 0.6° (standard deviation [SD] 1.1°) in the patients who had OGS alone compared with 0.7° (SD 1.2°) in the patients who had OGS after MDO (P = .745) between T2 and T3. There was no statistically significant difference in chin point relapse between patients who had OGS alone compared with those who had OGS after MDO (0.1 mm [SD 2.5mm] vs 0.7mm [SD 2.2mm]; P = .808). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, these findings suggest that OGS after MDO in patients with CFM can produce stable results.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of this investigation was to determine whether the nasal form of patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate treated with presurgical nasoalveolar molding therapy, primary lip-nose surgery, and postsurgical nostril retainer was different from that of patients treated with presurgical nasoalveolar molding and primary lip and nose surgery alone. METHODS: This cross-sectional, retrospective review focused on 50 consecutive patients with nonsyndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate: 24 treated with nasoalveolar molding and primary lip and nose surgery followed by postsurgical nostril retainer (group 1) compared with 26 patients treated with nasoalveolar molding and primary lip and nose surgery without postsurgical nostril retainer (group 2). Polyvinyl siloxane nasal impressions were performed at an average age of 12 months and 6 days. Bilateral measurements of alar width at maximum convexity, total alar base width, nasal tip projection, columella length, and nostril aperture width and height were recorded. Statistical comparisons of cleft-side versus noncleft side nasal measurements were performed within group 1 and group 2, as well as comparisons of differences between the two groups. RESULTS: Cleft-side nasal dimension was statistically significantly better in group 1 than in group 2 across all measures except nasal projection ( p < 0.05). Group 1 showed less difference between the cleft side and noncleft side in all six measurements than did group 2 ( p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant difference in the nasal shape of patients who used a postsurgical nostril retainer compared with those who did not. Patients who used a postsurgical nostril retainer showed better nasal shape at an average age of 12 months compared with the control group. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
