Phalloplasty Flap Salvage Using a Superficial Circumflex Iliac Artery Perforator Propeller Flap.

Background: Partial phalloplasty flap loss presents an evolving challenge, largely due to the complex demands required for both aesthetics and function. We describe our novel experience using the superficial circumflex iliac perforator (SCIP) propeller flap for neophallus salvage when skin grafting alone provides insufficient soft tissue bulk or coverage. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent SCIP propeller flap reconstruction after phalloplasty partial flap loss. After suprafascial dissection, superficial circumflex iliac vessel perforator(s) were isolated toward the femoral origin. The flap was rotated 180 degrees and inset into the ventral or distal neophallus depending on the region of flap loss. If glans reconstruction was required, the flap was tubularized before inset. Division and inset were performed at a second stage, followed by subsequent glansplasty, urethral creation, and/or penile implant placement. Results: SCIP propeller flap reconstruction was performed for four patients after one to six debridements at a mean of 6.5 (range 1.0-19.2) months following the initial phalloplasty. Three patients had lost the ventral phallus due to venous insufficiency, arterial insufficiency, and excessive postoperative swelling, respectively. The fourth patient experienced near-total loss of the glans following penile implant insertion. Division and inset was performed at an average of 7.5 (range 5.0-12.0) weeks after SCIP flap. There were no complications related to SCIP flap viability. Conclusion: The SCIP propeller flap allows salvage of partial flap loss following phalloplasty by providing thin, pliable soft tissue bulk and skin coverage with minimal donor site morbidity, without the need for microsurgery, allowing progression with subsequent reconstructive stages.

Negotiated Rates for Surgical Cancer Care in the Era of Price Transparency-Prices Reflect Market Competition.

OBJECTIVE: To measure commercial price variation for cancer surgery within and across hospitals. BACKGROUND: Surgical care for solid-organ tumors is costly, and negotiated commercial rates have been hidden from public view. The Hospital Price Transparency Rule, enacted in 2021, requires all hospitals to list their negotiated rates on their website, thus opening the door for an examination of pricing for cancer surgery. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study using 2021 negotiated price data disclosed by US hospitals for the 10 most common cancers treated with surgery. Price variation was measured using within-hospital and across-hospital ratios. Commercial rates relative to cancer center designation and the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index at the facility level were evaluated with mixed effects linear regression with random intercepts per procedural code. RESULTS: In all, 495,200 unique commercial rates from 2232 hospitals resulted for the 10 most common solid-organ tumor cancers. Gynecologic cancer operations had the highest median rates at $6035.8/operation compared with bladder cancer surgery at $3431.0/operation. Compared with competitive markets, moderately and highly concentrated markets were associated with significantly higher rates (HHI 1501, 2500, coefficient $513.6, 95% CI, $295.5, $731.7; HHI >2500, coefficient $1115.5, 95% CI, $913.7, $1317.2). National Cancer Institute designation was associated with higher rates, coefficient $3,451.9 (95% CI, $2853.2, $4050.7). CONCLUSIONS: Commercial payer-negotiated prices for the surgical management of 10 common, solid tumor malignancies varied widely both within and across hospitals. Higher rates were observed in less competitive markets. Future efforts should facilitate price competition and limit health market concentration.

Commercial Insurance Rates and Coding for Lymphedema Procedures: The Current State of Confusion and Need for Consensus.

BACKGROUND: Surgical treatment of lymphedema has outpaced coding paradigms. In the setting of ambiguity regarding coding for physiologic procedures [lymphovenous bypass (LVB) and vascularized lymph node transplant (VLNT)], we hypothesized that there would be variation in commercial reimbursement based on coding pattern. METHODS: The authors performed a cross-sectional analysis of 2021 nationwide hospital pricing data for 21 CPT codes encompassing excisional (direct excision, liposuction), physiologic (LVB, VLNT), and ancillary (lymphangiography) procedures. Within-hospital ratios (WHRs) and across-hospital ratios (AHRs) for adjusted commercial rates per CPT code quantified price variation. Mixed effects linear regression modeled associations of commercial rate with public payer (Medicare and Medicaid), self-pay, and chargemaster rates. RESULTS: A total of 270,254 commercial rates, including 95,774 rates for physiologic procedures, were extracted from 2863 hospitals. Lymphangiography codes varied most in commercial price (WHR, 1.76 to 3.89; AHR, 8.12 to 44.38). For physiologic codes, WHRs ranged from 1.01 (VLNT; free omental flap) to 3.03 (LVB; unlisted lymphatic procedure), and AHRs ranged from 5.23 (LVB; lymphatic channel incision) to 10.36 (LVB; unlisted lymphatic procedure). Median adjusted commercial rates for excisional procedures ($3635.84) were higher than for physiologic procedures ($2560.40; P < 0.001). Commercial rate positively correlated with Medicare rate for all physiologic codes combined, although regression coefficients varied by code. CONCLUSIONS: Commercial payer-negotiated rates for physiologic procedures were highly variable both within and across hospitals, reflective of variation in CPT codes. Physiologic procedures may be undervalued relative to excisional procedures. Consistent coding nomenclature should be developed for physiologic and ancillary procedures.

Association of High-Deductible Health Plans and Time to Surgery for Breast and Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) have been shown to delay timing of breast and colon cancer screening, although the relationship to the timing of cancer surgery is unknown. The objective of this study was to characterize timing of surgery for breast and colon cancer patients undergoing cancer operations following routine screening. STUDY DESIGN: Data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims Database from 2007 to 2016 were queried to identify patients who underwent screening mammogram and/or colonoscopy. The calendar quarters of screening and surgery were analyzed with ordinal logistic regression. The time from screening to surgery (time to surgery, TTS) was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard function. RESULTS: Among 32,562,751 patients who had screening mammograms, 0.7% underwent breast cancer surgery within the following year. Among 9,325,238 patients who had screening colonoscopies, 0.9% were followed by colon cancer surgery within a year. The odds of screening (OR 1.146 for mammogram, 1.272 for colonoscopy; p < 0.001) and surgery (OR 1.120 for breast surgery, 1.219 for colon surgery; p < 0.001) increased each quarter for HDHPs compared to low-deductible health plans. Enrollment in an HDHP was not associated with a difference in TTS. Screening in Q3 or Q4 was associated with shorter TTS compared to screening in Q1 (hazard ratio 1.061 and 1.046, respectively; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: HDHPs were associated with delays in screening and surgery. However, HDHPs were not associated with delays in TTS. Interventions to improve cancer care outcomes in the HDHP population should concentrate on reducing barriers to timely screening.

Free Flap Reconstruction in the Era of Commercial Price Transparency - What are We Paying For?

BACKGROUND: Commercial rates for free flap reconstruction were not known publicly prior to the 2021 Hospital Price Transparency Final Rule. The purpose of this study was to examine commercial facility payments to characterize nationwide variation for microsurgical operations and identify opportunities to improve market effectiveness. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed using 2022 commercial insurance pricing merged with hospital performance data. Facility payment rates were extracted for nine CPT codes for free flap operations. Price variation was quantified via across-hospital ratios (AHRs) and within-hospital ratios (WHRs). Mixed effects linear models evaluated commercial rates relative to value, outcomes, and equity performance metrics, in addition to facility-level factors that included healthcare market concentration. RESULTS: 20,528 commercial rates across 675 hospitals were compiled. AHRs ranged from 5.85-7.95, while WHRs ranged from 1.00-1.71. Compared to the lowest scoring hospitals (grade D), hospitals with an outcome grade of A and equity grades of B or C were associated with higher commercial rates (p<0.04); there were no significant differences in rate based on value. Higher commercial rates were also associated with nonprofit status and more concentrated markets (p<0.006). Lower commercial rates were correlated with safety-net and teaching hospitals (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Commercial rates for free flaps varied substantially both across and within hospitals. Associations of higher commercial rates with less competitive markets, and the lack of consistent association with value and equity, identify pricing failures. Additional work is needed to improve market efficiency for free flap operations.

Feasibility and Clinical Utility of Prediction Models for Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema Incorporating Racial Differences in Disease Incidence.

Importance: Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) is a common complication of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) but can also develop after sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). Several models have been developed to predict the risk of disease development before and after surgery; however, these models have shortcomings that include the omission of race, inclusion of variables that are not readily available to patients, low sensitivity or specificity, and lack of risk assessment for patients treated with SLNB. Objective: To create simple and accurate prediction models for BCRL that can be used to estimate preoperative or postoperative risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prognostic study, women with breast cancer who underwent ALND or SLNB from 1999 to 2020 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and the Mayo Clinic were included. Data were analyzed from September to December 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Diagnosis of lymphedema based on measurements. Two predictive models were formulated via logistic regression: a preoperative model (model 1) and a postoperative model (model 2). Model 1 was externally validated using a cohort of 34 438 patients with an International Classification of Diseases diagnosis of breast cancer. Results: Of 1882 included patients, all were female, and the mean (SD) age was 55.6 (12.2) years; 80 patients (4.3%) were Asian, 190 (10.1%) were Black, 1558 (82.8%) were White, and 54 (2.9%) were another race (including American Indian and Alaska Native, other race, patient refused to disclose, or unknown). A total of 218 patients (11.6%) were diagnosed with BCRL at a mean (SD) follow-up of 3.9 (1.8) years. The BCRL rate was significantly higher among Black women (42 of 190 [22.1%]) compared with all other races (Asian, 10 of 80 [12.5%]; White, 158 of 1558 [10.1%]; other race, 8 of 54 [14.8%]; P < .001). Model 1 included age, weight, height, race, ALND/SLNB status, any radiation therapy, and any chemotherapy. Model 2 included age, weight, race, ALND/SLNB status, any chemotherapy, and patient-reported arm swelling. Accuracy was 73.0% for model 1 (sensitivity, 76.6%; specificity, 72.5%; area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.75-0.81) at a cutoff of 0.18, and accuracy was 81.1% for model 2 (sensitivity, 78.0%; specificity, 81.5%; AUC, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.88) at a cutoff of 0.10. Both models demonstrated high AUCs on external (model 1: 0.75; 95% CI, 0.74-0.76) or internal (model 2: 0.82; 95% CI, 0.79-0.85) validation. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, preoperative and postoperative prediction models for BCRL were highly accurate and clinically relevant tools comprised of accessible inputs and underscored the effects of racial differences on BCRL risk. The preoperative model identified high-risk patients who require close monitoring or preventative measures. The postoperative model can be used for screening of high-risk patients, thus decreasing the need for frequent clinic visits and arm volume measurements.

Plastic surgery market share of breast reconstructive procedures: An analysis of two nationwide databases.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Given advances that streamline breast reconstruction (e.g., prepectoral placement, acellular dermal matrix [ADM], oncoplastic surgery), there is concern that nonplastic surgeons are performing a growing proportion of breast reconstructive procedures. The purpose of this study was to evaluate US trends in the market share of breast reconstruction performed by plastic compared to general surgeons. METHODS: IBM® MarketScan® Commercial Claims 2006-2017 and NSQIP 2005-2020 were queried to identify women who underwent mastectomy with alloplastic (tissue expander or implant-based) or free flap reconstruction, or lumpectomy with oncoplastic reconstruction (breast reduction, mastopexy, or local/regional flap). MarketScan included immediate and delayed reconstructions, while all NSQIP reconstructions were immediate. Poisson regression with incident rate ratios (IRRs) modeled trends in surgeon type over time. RESULTS: The cohort included 65 168 encounters from MarketScan and 73 351 from NSQIP. Plastic surgeons performed 95.8% of free flap, 93.8% of alloplastic, and 64.9% of oncoplastic reconstructions. Plastic surgeons performed an increasing proportion of immediate oncoplastic reduction and mastopexy (MarketScan IRR: 1.077, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.060-1.094, p < 0.001; NSQIP IRR: 1.041, 95% CI: 1.030-1.052, p < 0.001). There were no clinically significant trends for delayed oncoplastic, alloplastic, or free flap reconstructions. Plastic surgeons were more likely to use ADM compared to general surgeons in NSQIP (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Plastic surgeons gained market share in immediate oncoplastic breast reduction and mastopexy over the past two decades without any loss in alloplastic or free flap breast reconstruction. Plastic surgeons should continue collaboration with breast surgical oncologists to reinforce the shared surgeon model for management of breast cancer.

"The Effects of Gingivoperiosteoplasty and Cleft Palate Repair on Facial Growth."

PURPOSE: Gingivoperiosteoplasty (GPP) can avoid secondary alveolar bone graft in up to 60% of patients. The effects of GPP on maxillary growth are a concern. However, palatoplasty can also negatively impact facial growth. This study quantifies the isolated effects of GPP and cleft palate repair on maxillary growth at the age of mixed dentition. METHODS: A single institution, retrospective study of all patients undergoing primary reconstruction for unilateral cleft lip and alveolus (CLA) or cleft lip and palate (CLP) was performed. Study patients had lateral cephalograms at age of mixed dentition. Patients were stratified into four groups: CLA with GPP (CLA+GPP), CLA without GPP (CLA-GPP), CLP with GPP (CLP+GPP), and CLP without GPP (CLP-GPP). Cephalometric measurements included: sella-nasion-point A (SNA), sella-nasion-point B (SNB), and A point-nasion-B point (ANB). Landmarks were compared between patient groups and to Eurocleft Center D data. RESULTS: 110 patients met inclusion criteria: 7 CLA-GPP, 16 CLA+GPP, 24 CLP-GPP, and 63 CLP+GPP patients. There were no significant differences in SNA, SNB, and ANB between CLA+GPP and CLA-GPP, or between CLP+GPP and CLP-GPP groups. In patients who did not receive GPP, SNA was significantly lower in patients with a cleft palate compared to patients with an intact palate (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in SNA or SNB of CLP-GPP or CLP+GPP groups when compared to Eurocleft data. CONCLUSION: When controlling for the effects of cleft palate repair, GPP does not appear to negatively affect midface growth at the age of mixed dentition.

Characterizing Cleft Rhinoplasty Across Skeletal Maturity: A Systematic Review of Terminology and Surgical Techniques.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess cleft rhinoplasty terminology across phases of growth.Design/Setting: A systematic review was performed on cleft rhinoplasty publications over 20 years.Interventions: Studies were categorized by age at surgical intervention: infant (<1 year); immature (1 to 14 years); mature (>15 years).Main Outcome Measures: Collected data included terminology used and surgical techniques. RESULTS: The 288 studies included demonstrated a wide range of terminology. In the infant group, 51/54 studies used the term "primary." In the immature group, 7/18 studies used the term "primary," 3/18 used "secondary." In the mature group, 2/33 studies used the term "primary," 16/33 used "secondary," 2/33 used "definitive," 5/33 used terms such as "mature," "adult," and "late," and 8/33 did not use terminology.Surgical technique assessment demonstrated: cleft rhinoplasty at infancy used nostril rim or no nasal incision, immature rhinoplasty used closed and open rhinoplasty incisions; and mature rhinoplasty used a majority of open rhinoplasty. Infant and immature cleft rhinoplasty incorporated septal harvest or spur removal in <10% of cases, whereas these procedures were common in mature rhinoplasty. No studies in infants or immature patients used osteotomies or septal grafts, common techniques in mature rhinoplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Current terminology for cleft rhinoplasty is varied and inconsistently applied across stages of facial development. However, cleft rhinoplasty performed at infancy, childhood, and facial maturity are surgically distinct procedures. The authors recommend the terminology "infant," "immature," and "mature" cleft rhinoplasty to accurately describe this procedure within the context of skeletal growth.

Clinical Outcomes of Bilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Repair with Nasoalveolar Molding and Gingivoperiosteoplasty to Facial Maturity.

BACKGROUND: The long-term effects of nasoalveolar molding (NAM) on patients with bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) are unknown. The authors report clinical outcomes of facially mature patients with complete BCLP who underwent NAM and gingivoperiosteoplasty (GPP). METHODS: A single-institution retrospective study of nonsyndromic patients with complete BCLP who underwent NAM between 1991 and 2000 was performed. All study patients were followed to skeletal maturity, at which time a lateral cephalogram was obtained. The total number of cleft operations and cephalometric measures was compared with a previously published external cohort of patients with complete and incomplete BCLP in which a minority (16.7%) underwent presurgical orthopedics before cleft lip repair without GPP. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients with BCLP comprised the study cohort. All patients underwent GPP, 13 (54.2%) underwent alveolar bone graft, and nine (37.5%) required speech surgery. The median number of operations per patient was five (interquartile range, two), compared with eight (interquartile range, three) in the external cohort ( P < 0.001). Average age at the time of lateral cephalogram was 18.64 years (1.92). There was no significant difference between our cohort and the external cohort with respect to sella-nasion-point A angle (SNA) [73 degrees (6 degrees) versus 75 degrees (11 degrees); P = 0.186] or sella-nasion-point B angle (SNA) [78 degrees (6 degrees) versus 74 degrees (9 degrees); P = 0.574]. Median ANB (SNA - SNB) was -3 degrees (5 degrees) compared with -1 degree (7 degrees; P = 0.024). Twenty patients (83.3%) underwent orthognathic surgery. CONCLUSION: Patients with BCLP who underwent NAM and GPP had significantly fewer total cleft operations and mixed midface growth outcomes at facial maturity compared with patients who did not undergo this treatment protocol. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

The Reality of Commercial Payer-Negotiated Rates in Cleft Lip and Palate Repair.

BACKGROUND: Commercial payer-negotiated rates for cleft lip and palate surgery have not been evaluated on a national scale. The aim of this study was to characterize commercial rates for cleft care, both in terms of nationwide variation and in relation to Medicaid rates. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was performed of 2021 hospital pricing data from Turquoise Health, a data service platform that aggregates hospital price disclosures. The data were queried by CPT code to identify 20 cleft surgical services. Within- and across-hospital ratios were calculated per CPT code to quantify commercial rate variation. Generalized linear models were used to assess the relationship between median commercial rate and facility-level variables and between commercial and Medicaid rates. RESULTS: There were 80,710 unique commercial rates from 792 hospitals. Within-hospital ratios for commercial rates ranged from 2.0 to 2.9 and across-hospital ratios ranged from 5.4 to 13.7. Median commercial rates per facility were higher than Medicaid rates for primary cleft lip and palate repair ($5492.20 versus $1739.00), secondary cleft lip and palate repair ($5429.10 versus $1917.00), and cleft rhinoplasty ($6001.00 versus $1917.00; P < 0.001). Lower commercial rates were associated with hospitals that were smaller ( P < 0.001), safety-net ( P < 0.001), and nonprofit ( P < 0.001). Medicaid rate was positively associated with commercial rate ( P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Commercial rates for cleft surgical care demonstrated marked variation within and across hospitals, and were lower for small, safety-net, or nonprofit hospitals. Lower Medicaid rates were not associated with higher commercial rates, suggesting that hospitals did not use cost-shifting to compensate for budget shortfalls resulting from poor Medicaid reimbursement.

National Undervaluation of Cleft Surgical Services: Evidence from a Comparative Analysis of 50,450 Cases.

BACKGROUND: Relative value units (RVUs) are broadly used for billing and physician compensation; however, the accuracy of RVU assignments has not been scientifically evaluated for craniofacial surgery. The authors hypothesize that unbalanced RVU allocation creates inappropriate disparities in value among procedures performed by cleft and craniofacial surgeons. METHODS: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Pediatric database was queried to identify all cleft and craniofacial surgery cases performed by plastic surgeons from 2012 to 2019 based on CPT code. Microsurgical cases and CPT codes with a case count of fewer than 10 were excluded. Efficiency was defined as total RVUs divided by total operative time (ie, RVUs/hour). Mean efficiency per CPT code was ranked and compared by quartile using t tests. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 69 CPT codes with 50,450 cases. In the top quartile, most CPT codes were craniofacial procedures including frontofacial procedures (23.53%) and craniectomies for craniosynostosis or bony lesions (35.29%) (mean, 15.65 ± 4.22 RVUs/hour). The lowest quartile was composed mainly of CPT codes for cleft procedures including operations for velopharyngeal insufficiency (17.65%), cleft palate repair (23.53%), and cleft septoplasty (5.88%) (mean, 7.39 ± 0.98 RVUs/hour; P < 0.001). It was 2.5 times more efficient for a cleft and craniofacial surgeon to perform a local skin flap (15.18 RVUs/hour) than a secondary palatal lengthening for cleft palate (6.09 RVUs/hour). CONCLUSIONS: The current RVU allocation to cleft and craniofacial procedures creates arbitrary disparities in physician efficiency, with cleft procedures disproportionately negatively affected. RVU assignments should be reevaluated to avoid disincentivizing cleft surgical care.

Reconstructive Approaches Following Sphenoorbital Meningioma Resection.

Sphenoorbital meningiomas are a challenge to access and reconstruct. Although there is much neurosurgical literature on resection of such tumors, there is little discussion on the best methods for the reconstruction of consequent defects, which are often extensive due to large areas of hyperostosis requiring resection. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent resection and reconstruction of a sphenoorbital meningioma by the senior authors (C.S. and D.A.S.) between 2010 and 2020. Surgical access in all cases included an orbitozygomatic osteotomy. The study cohort consisted of 23 patients (20 female, 3 male) with an average age of 50 (range: 37-72) years at the time of surgery. Most patients had progressive proptosis before the ablative operation. Orbital reconstruction was with a combined titanium-Medpor implant in 18 patients, split calvarial bone graft in 3 patients, and a Medpor implant in 2 patients. Calvarial reconstruction was performed with titanium mesh in 21 patients, split calvarial bone graft and titanium mesh in 1 patient, and craniotomy bone and titanium plate in 1 patient. Reoperation was required in 7 patients due to hypoglobus or enophthalmos (N=2), orbital implant malposition (N=1), abscess (N=1), pain (N=1), intracranial fat graft modification (N=1), and soft tissue deformities (N=2). Our experience demonstrates that sphenoorbital meningiomas can require broad areas of resection of the skull base and calvarium and necessitate comprehensive reconstruction of the anterior cranial fossa, orbital walls, and cranium. Collaboration between craniofacial surgeons and neurosurgeons can achieve optimal results.

Bone Tissue Engineering Strategies for Alveolar Cleft: Review of Preclinical Results and Guidelines for Future Studies.

The current standard of care for an alveolar cleft defect is an autogenous bone graft, typically from the iliac crest. Given the limitations of alveolar bone graft surgery, such as limited supply, donor site morbidity, graft failure, and need for secondary surgery, there has been growing interest in regenerative medicine strategies to supplement and replace traditional alveolar bone grafts. Though there have been preliminary clinical studies investigating bone tissue engineering methods in human subjects, lack of consistent results as well as limitations in study design make it difficult to determine the efficacy of these interventions. As the field of bone tissue engineering is rapidly advancing, reconstructive surgeons should be aware of the preclinical studies informing these regenerative strategies. We review preclinical studies investigating bone tissue engineering strategies in large animal maxillary or mandibular defects and provide an overview of scaffolds, stem cells, and osteogenic agents applicable to tissue engineering of the alveolar cleft. An electronic search conducted in the PubMed database up to December 2021 resulted in 35 studies for inclusion in our review. Most studies showed increased bone growth with a tissue engineering construct compared to negative control. However, heterogeneity in the length of follow up, method of bone growth analysis, and inconsistent use of positive control groups make comparisons across studies difficult. Future studies should incorporate a pediatric study model specific to alveolar cleft with long-term follow up to fully characterize volumetric defect filling, cellular ingrowth, bone strength, tooth movement, and implant support.

"Septoplasty" Performed at Primary Cleft Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review of Techniques and Call for Accurate Terminology.

OBJECTIVE: Primary cleft nasal repair can include septal reconstruction. We hypothesize that primary cleft septoplasty and adult septoplasty have fundamental differences that render these procedures as distinct surgical entities. DESIGN: Systematic review of the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases performed on pediatric cleft and general adult septoplasty techniques through December 2021. (PROSPERO ID CRD42022295763). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Collected data included information on septal dissection, septal detachment, and management of the bony and cartilaginous septum. RESULTS: Twenty-eight pediatric cleft septoplasty and 229 adult septoplasty studies were included. Dissection in primary cleft septoplasty was limited to the anterocaudal septum, while secondary cleft septoplasty and adult septoplasty techniques entailed wide exposures of the cartilaginous septum with or without exposure of the perpendicular plate of the ethmoid. In primary cleft septoplasty, detachment of the septum was mostly limited to the nasal spine and anterior base of the cartilaginous septum, while secondary cleft septoplasty and adult septoplasty included detachment from the vomer, and ethmoid. In the few reports of cartilage excision during primary cleft septoplasty, removal was limited to the anterior inferior border of the septum, while secondary cleft septoplasty and adult septoplasty included excision of the cartilaginous and bony septum. CONCLUSION: Primary cleft septoplasty is distinct from septoplasty performed on facially mature patients. More specifically, septal dissection and detachment are limited to the anterior caudal area during primary lip repair, with rare removal of cartilage or bone. Given these differences, the authors suggest the term "septal reset" to describe septoplasty performed during primary cleft nasal repair.