Is non-syndromic single suture craniosynostosis purely an aesthetic problem?

Cleft and Craniofacial Multidisciplinary Team Clinic: A Look at Attrition Rates for Patients With Complete Cleft Lip and Palate and Nonsyndromic Single-Suture Craniosynostosis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate attrition rates prior to expected completion of team care for children with complete cleft lip and palate (cleft) or nonsyndromic single-suture craniosynostosis (synostosis).

DESIGN

A single-institution retrospective review of attendance data from 2002 to 2016.

SETTING

Single cleft and craniofacial center in the United States.

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS

A sample of 983 patients with either cleft or synostosis. Patients who were more than 2 to 3 years from their last visit were considered lost to follow-up. Patients with cleft older than 16 years or synostosis over 11 years were considered graduated from team care.

RESULTS

Survival analysis shows that in our patients with cleft, 25% leave before age 8 and over 60% are lost from team by age 16. In patients with synostosis, 25% leave before age 6 and 45% are lost by age 11. Cox regression showed underrepresented minorities being 1.7 times more likely to become lost in the cleft group (hazard ratio: 1.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-2.74).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, attrition rates were high at our institution. Many patients are lost to follow-up prior to receiving key medical interventions. Improved family education and personalized care are needed to help ensure continuity of care.

Assessing aesthetic outcomes after trigonocephaly correction

PURPOSE

This study analysed the aesthetic outcome assessments after trigonocephaly correction using different assessor groups.

METHODS

Twenty-four patients (9 males, 15 females) with a surgical age between 8 and 10 months were included. Standardised photographs showing different facial views of the patients between ages 3 and 6 years were evaluated in terms of aesthetics by three study groups: surgeons, medical students, and lay persons. Each photograph was scored as follows: 1 (normal), 2 (acceptable, no need for revision), or 3 (unacceptable, needs revision).

RESULTS

The mean surgical age was 9.1 ±0.4 months. Based on the en-face images, the mean scores assigned by the surgeon, student, and lay groups were 1.4 ±0.49, 1.25 ±0.44, and 1.13 ±0.34, respectively. Based on the patients' profiles, the mean scores assigned by the surgeon, student, and lay groups were 1.37 ±0.49, 1.16 ±0.37, and 1.09 ±0.29, respectively. The scores of the hemi-profile evaluation were 1.14 ±0.35, 1.07 ±0.26, and 1.09 ±0.31, respectively. The scores of the frontal region were 1.47 ±0.54, 1.33 ±0.49, and 1.39 ±0.49, respectively. Within the orbital area, the surgeon, student, and lay groups assigned mean scores of 1.53 ±0.56, 1.29 ±0.46, and 1.15 ±0.36, respectively. The midface analysis showed mean scores of 1.8 ±0.66, 1.63 ±0.52, and 1.46 ±0.5, respectively. In all areas, there were significant differences (P < 0.05) among the assessor groups.

CONCLUSION

The expectations regarding aesthetic outcome differ considerably between experts and non-experts. The need for correction did not concern the reshaped bone but rather the soft tissue epicanthal area.