Comparison of the Effects of Postoperative Arm Restraints and Mittens on Cleft Lip Scar Quality after Primary Repair.

Introduction: Postoperative management following primary cleft lip repair varies across institutions, cleft care teams, and individual surgeons. Postoperative precautions employed after cleft lip repair include dietary restrictions, pacifier limitations, and immobilization, with arm restraints long being used. Yet, restraint distress has led to the exploration of other forms of immobilization. Thus, this study aims to assess cleft lip scar quality and complication rates after postoperative immobilization with arm restraints versus hand mittens. Methods: A retrospective review of patients with unilateral cleft who underwent primary repair with the senior surgeon was done. Data on demographics, surgical characteristics, and immobilization utilized were gathered. A survey with pictures of postoperative scars were sent to laypeople who assessed scar quality with Modified Scar-Rating Scale scores for surface appearance, height, and color of the scar tissue. Statistical analysis was carried out for significance. Results: Twenty-eight patients with a unilateral cleft underwent arm restraints after primary lip repair, and twenty-seven utilized mittens. In total, 42 medical students completed the scar assessment. Photographs were taken an average of 23.9 (±5.8) and 28.2 (±11.9) months postoperatively in the restraint and mitten groups, respectively (p = 0.239). There were no statistically significant differences in scores between scar surface, height, color, or overall scar appearance. Complication rates were also similar between groups. Conclusions: Arm restraints appear to have no additional benefit relative to scar quality, as compared to mittens. Considering the arm restraints' burden of care, mittens should be considered as a measure to protect the lip after primary repair.

Contemporary Prevalence of Oral Clefts in the US: Geographic and Socioeconomic Considerations.

Background: Socio-economic status, living environments, and race have been implicated in the development of different congenital abnormalities. As orofacial clefting is the most common anomaly affecting the face, an understanding of its prevalence in the United States and its relationship with different determinants of health is paramount. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to determine the modern prevalence of oral-facial clefting in the United States and its association with different social determinants of health. Methods: Utilizing Epic Cosmos, data from approximately 180 US institutions were queried. Patients born between November 2012 and November 2022 were included. Eight orofacial clefting (OC) cohorts were identified. The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) was used to assess social determinants of health. Results: Of the 15,697,366 patients identified, 31,216 were diagnosed with OC, resulting in a prevalence of 19.9 (95% CI: 19.7-20.1) per 10,000 live births. OC prevalence was highest among Asian (27.5 CI: 26.2-28.8) and Native American (32.8 CI: 30.4-35.2) patients and lowest among Black patients (12.96 CI: 12.5-13.4). Male and Hispanic patients exhibited higher OC prevalence than female and non-Hispanic patients. No significant differences were found among metropolitan (20.23/10,000), micropolitan (20.18/10,000), and rural populations (20.02/10,000). SVI data demonstrated that OC prevalence was positively associated with the percentage of the population below the poverty line and negatively associated with the proportion of minority language speakers. Conclusions: This study examined the largest US cohort of OC patients to date to define contemporary US prevalence, reporting a marginally higher rate than previous estimates. Multiple social determinants of health were found to be associated with OC prevalence, underscoring the importance of holistic prenatal care. These data may inform clinicians about screening and counseling of expectant families based on socio-economic factors and direct future research as it identifies potential risk factors and provides prevalence data, both of which are useful in addressing common questions related to screening and counseling.

Association of Commonly Prescribed Antepartum Medications and Incidence of Orofacial Clefting.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacologic agents are often used in the antepartum period, however, studies on their effect on fetal development are limited. Thus, this study aims to examine the effect of commonly prescribed antepartum medications on the development of orofacial clefting. METHODS: Utilizing EPIC Cosmos deidentified data from approximately 180 US institutions was queried. Patients born between January 1, 2013, to January 1, 2023, were included. Eight OC cohorts were identified. Gestational medication use was identified by medications prescribed, provider-administered, or reported use by mothers. Medications used in at least 1 in 10,000 pregnancies were included in this analysis. RESULTS: A total of 12 098 newborns with available maternal pharmacologic data were born with any type of orofacial clefting. Prevalence for all oral clefts, any cleft palate, and any cleft lip were 20.56, 18.10, and 10.60 per 10 000 individuals, respectively. Notable significant exposures include most anticonvulsants, such as lamotrigine (OR1.33, CI 1.10-1.62), and topiramate (OR1.35, CI 1.13-1.62), as well as nearly all SSRIs/SNRIs, including fluoxetine (OR1.34, CI 1.19-1.51), sertraline (OR1.25, CI 1.16-1.34), and citalopram (OR1.28, CI 1.11-1.47). Corticosteroids were also correlated including dexamethasone (OR1.19, CI 1.12-1.27), and betamethasone (OR1.64, CI 1.55-1.73), as were antibiotics, including amoxicillin (OR1.22, CI 1.14-1.30), doxycycline (OR1.29, CI 1.10-1.52), and nitrofuran derivatives (OR1.10, CI 1.03-1.17). CONCLUSION: New associations between commonly prescribed antepartum medications and orofacial clefting were found. These findings should be confirmed as causality is not assessed in this report. Practitioners should be aware of the potential increased risk associated with these medications.

Virtual Reality Simulation of Airway Management Post-Cleft Palate Surgery: A Model for Sustainable and Equitable Education.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of virtual-reality (VR) simulation-based training in cleft surgery has not been tested. The purpose of this study was to evaluate learners' acceptance of VR simulation in airway management of a pediatric patient post-cleft palate repair. METHODS: This VR simulation was developed through collaboration between BioDigital and Smile Train. 26 medical students from a single institution completed 10 min of standardized VR training and 5 min of standardized discussion about airway management post-cleft palate repair. They spent 4-8 min in the VR simulation with guidance from a cleft surgery expert. Participants completed pre- and post-surveys evaluating confidence in using VR as an educational tool, understanding of airway management, and opinions on VR in surgical education. Satisfaction was evaluated using a modified Student Evaluation of Educational Quality questionnaire and scored on a 5-point Likert scale. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were performed to evaluate responses. RESULTS: There was a significant increase in respondents' confidence using VR as an educational tool and understanding of airway management post-cleft palate repair after the simulation (P < .001). Respondents' opinions on incorporating VR in surgical education started high and did not change significantly post-simulation. Participants were satisfied with VR-based simulation and reported it was stimulating (4.31 ± 0.88), increased interest (3.77 ± 1.21), enhanced learning (4.12 ± 1.05), was clear (4.15 ± 0.97), was effective in teaching (4.08 ± 0.81), and would recommend the simulation (4.2 ± 1.04). CONCLUSION: VR-based simulation can significantly increase learners' confidence and skills in airway management post-cleft palate repair. Learners find VR to be effective and recommend its incorporation in surgical education.

Facial Masculinization Surgery: An Analysis of Interest Trends Using Search Term Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Facial masculinization surgery (FMS) is increasingly popular among cisgender and transgender men. The benefits of FMS are focused on facial identity and have been proven to decrease gender dysphoria in this population. Previous research showed increasing interest in gender affirmation surgery and facial feminization surgery, but the prevalence of FMS has not been explored. It is difficult to find these data based on surgical records alone because institutions do not have standardized methods of reporting and lack publications in the field. Our study aimed to analyze public interest in FMS by using worldwide Google Trends to quantify these trends. METHODS: A worldwide Google Trends search was completed from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2022, for terms focused on FMS. Then, search terms were analyzed for nonfacial masculinization procedures and were aggregated. Lastly, a PubMed search was conducted for the terms "transgender" and "facial masculinization" from January 1, 2008, to December 31 st , 2022, to compare publication rates. RESULTS: Our data showed an increasing interest in FMS through Google search trends since the year 2008. A similar trend was demonstrated for non-FMS gender-affirming terms. PubMed analysis showed "transgender" medicine publishing rates were approximately 39.65 times greater than "facial masculinization" publishing rates, although "facial masculinization" medicine did produce a positive trend over the study period of approximately 4 publications per year. The medical literature on transgender surgeries rapidly outpaces publications specifically focusing on FMS. CONCLUSION: Our study showed increasing interest in gender affirmation surgery over time, particularly FMS. These increasing trends should encourage greater scientific exploration of FMS and research to properly quantify and assess surgical outcomes in this special population. Additional educational interventions for both the general public and medical providers, to increase awareness of unique challenges that impact this community and highlight changes in health care coverage over time, should be created to keep pace with increasing patient demand and address the physical, systemic, and psychosocial issues faced by people who identify as transgender.

LeFort I Horizontal Osteotomy: Defining the Feasibility of the "High Osteotomy".

OBJECTIVE: To define "high osteotomy" and determine the feasibility of performing this procedure. DESIGN: Single institution, retrospective review. SETTING: Academic tertiary referral hospital. PATIENTS, PARTICIPANTS: 34 skeletally mature, nonsyndromic patients with unilateral CLP who underwent Le Fort I osteotomy between 2013 and 2020. Patients with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans completed both pre- (T1) and post-operatively (T2) were included. Patients with bilateral clefts and rhinoplasty prior to post-operative imaging were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: Single jaw one-piece Le Fort I advancement surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Measurements of the superior ala and inferior turbinates were taken from the post-operative CBCT. RESULTS: The sample included 26 males and 8 females, 12 right- and 22 left-sided clefts. The inferior turbinates are above the superior alar crease at a rate of 73.53% and 76.48% on the cleft and non-cleft sides, respectively. One (2.9%) osteotomy cut was above the level of the cleft superior alar crease, and no cuts were above the level of the non-cleft superior ala. On average, the superior ala was 2.63 mm below the inferior turbinates. The average vertical distances from the superior alar crease and the inferior turbinates to the base of the non-cleft side pyriform aperture were 12.17 mm (95% CI 4.00-20.34) and 14.80 mm (95% CI 4.61-24.98), respectively. To complete a "high osteotomy," with 95% confidence, the cut should be 20.36 mm from the base of the pyriform aperture. CONCLUSIONS: A "high" osteotomy is not consistently possible due to the relationship between the superior alar crease and the inferior turbinate.

Internet-based Digital Simulation for Cleft Surgery Education: A 10-year Assessment of Demographics, Usage, and Future Directions.

Background: In October 2012, an open-access, multimedia digital cleft simulator was released. Its purpose was to address global disparities in cleft surgery education, providing an easily accessible surgical atlas for trainees globally. The simulator platform includes a three-dimensional surgical simulation of cleft care procedures, intraoperative videos, and voiceover. This report aims to assess the simulator's demographics and usage in its tenth year since inception. Finally, we also aim to understand the traction of virtual reality in cleft surgical education. Methods: Usage data of the simulator over 10 years were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Data parameters included the number of users, sessions, countries reached, and content access. An electronic survey was emailed to registered users to assess the benefits of the simulator. Results: The total number of new and active simulator users reached 7687 and 12,042. The simulator was accessed an average of 172.9.0 ± 197.5 times per month. Low- to middle-income regions accounted for 43% of these sessions. The mean session duration was 11.4 ± 6.3 minutes, yielding a total screen time of 3022 hours. A total of 331 individuals responded to the survey, of whom 80.8% found the simulator to be very useful or extremely useful. Of those involved in education, 45.0% implemented the simulator as a teaching tool. Conclusions: Global utilization of the simulator has been sustained after 10 years from inception with an increased presence in low- to middle-income nations. Future similar surgical simulators may provide sustainable training platforms to surgeons in low- and high-resource areas.