ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Recent investigations focused on health equity have enumerated widespread disparities in cleft and craniofacial care. This review introduces a structured framework to aggregate findings and direct future research. DESIGN: Systematic review was performed to identify studies assessing health disparities based on race/ethnicity, payor type, income, geography, and education in cleft and craniofacial surgery in high-income countries (HICs) and low/middle-income countries (LMICs). Case reports and systematic reviews were excluded. Meta-analysis was conducted using fixed-effect models for disparities described in three or more studies. SETTING: N/A. PATIENTS: Patients with cleft lip/palate, craniosynostosis, craniofacial syndromes, and craniofacial trauma. INTERVENTIONS: N/A. RESULTS: One hundred forty-seven articles were included (80% cleft, 20% craniofacial; 48% HIC-based). Studies in HICs predominantly described disparities (77%,) and in LMICs focused on reducing disparities (42%). Level II-IV evidence replicated delays in cleft repair, alveolar bone grafting, and cranial vault remodeling for non-White and publicly insured patients in HICs (Grades A-B). Grade B-D evidence from LMICs suggested efficacy of community-based speech therapy and remote patient navigation programs. Meta-analysis demonstrated that Black patients underwent craniosynostosis surgery 2.8 months later than White patients (P < .001) and were less likely to undergo minimally-invasive surgery (OR 0.36, P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Delays in cleft and craniofacial surgical treatment are consistently identified with high-level evidence among non-White and publicly-insured families in HICs. Multiple tactics to facilitate patient access and adapt multi-disciplinary case in austere settings are reported from LMICs. Future efforts including those sharing tactics among HICs and LMICs hold promise to help mitigate barriers to care.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Our center adopted posterior vault distraction osteogenesis (PVDO) as a first-line intervention for cranial expansion in syndromic craniosynostosis in 2008, and we have a growing cohort of patients undergoing transcranial midface advancement who have not had prior fronto-orbital advancement (FOA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether a history of FOA influences the risk profile of transcranial midface advancement in patients with syndromic craniosynostosis. METHODS: Patients undergoing transcranial fronto-facial advancement from 2000 to 2022 were retrospectively divided into cohorts based on preceding history of fronto-orbital advancement (FOA- and FOA+). Perioperative outcomes including operative time, length of stay, intraoperative dural injury, and complications (Clavien-Dindo score) were compared between groups with appropriate statistics. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were included (15 in FOA- group and 23 in FOA+ group). The overall complication rate was 47% (10% minor, 37% major). Compared to the FOA- group, the FOA+ group had a higher incidence of dural tears (65% v 20%, p = 0.006) and major complications (48% v 13%, p = 0.028). These findings were recapitulated in multivariate logistic regression controlling for other predictors. CONCLUSIONS: Prior FOA is associated with increased rates of major complications and dural tears in patients with syndromic craniosynostosis undergoing fronto-facial surgery. Options for cranial vault expansion that avoid the frontal region, such as PVDO, may favorably alter the risk profile of fronto-facial advancement.
