Variation among cleft centres in the use of secondary surgery for children with cleft palate: a retrospective cohort study

Time-Driven, Activity-Based Costing of Presurgical Infant Orthopedics: A Critical Component of Establishing Value of Latham Appliance and Nasoalveolar Molding

BACKGROUND

Value-based health-care reform requires assessment of outcomes and costs of medical interventions. In cleft care, presurgical infant orthopedics is still being evaluated for clinical benefits and risks; however, the cost of these procedures has been largely ignored. This study uses robust accounting methods to quantify the cost of providing two types of presurgical infant orthopedics: Latham appliance treatment and nasoalveolar molding.

METHODS

This is a prospective study of patients with nonsyndromic cleft lip and/or palate who underwent treatment with presurgical infant orthopedics from 2017 to 2019 at two academic centers. Costs were measured using time-driven activity-based costing. Personnel costs, facility costs (operating room, clinic, and inpatient ward), and equipment costs were included. Travel expenses were incorporated as an estimate of direct costs borne by the family, but indirect costs (e.g., time off from work) were not considered.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients were treated with Latham appliance treatment and 14 were treated with nasoalveolar molding. For Latham appliance treatment, average total cost was $7553 per patient ($1041 for personnel, $637 for equipment, $4871 for facility, and $1004 for travel over 6.5 visits). Unilateral and bilateral costs were $6891 and $8860, respectively. For nasoalveolar molding, average cost totaled $2541 ($364 for personnel, $151 for equipment, $300 for facility, and $1726 for travel over 13 visits); $2120 for unilateral and $3048 for bilateral treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The major difference in cost is attributable to operative placement of the Latham device. Travel cost for nasoalveolar molding is often higher because of frequent clinical encounters required. Future investigation should focus on whether outcomes achieved by presurgical infant orthopedics justify the $2100 to $8900 expenditure for these adjunctive procedures.

The Effect of Surgical Timing on 30-Day Outcomes in Cleft Palate Repair

BACKGROUND

The optimal age for cleft palate repair continues to be debated, with little discussion of surgical risk related to operative timing. This study of 3088 cleft palate patients analyzed the impact of surgical timing on perioperative and 30-day postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

Primary cleft palate repairs were identified in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2012 to 2015. Data were combed for total postoperative complications, rates of readmission and reoperation, operating room time, and length of stay. Bivariate analyses were performed comparing 3-month periods from months 6 to 18, and months 0 to 5, 18 to 23, 24 to 29, and 30 to 59.

RESULTS

Despite a higher proportion of isolated soft palate closure, children operated on before 6 months had a higher complication rate than children at other ages (7.1 percent versus 3.2 percent; OR, 2.4; p = 0.04), and higher rates of both readmission (3.6 percent versus 1.4 percent; OR, 3.6; p = 0.02) and reoperation (2.4 percent versus 0.5 percent; OR, 4.7; p = 0.04). There were no differences in short-term outcomes for any other age group younger than 5 years, and no differences in hospital length of stay among any age groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors' findings suggest a relative contraindication to operation before 6 months. As there were no differences between any other age groups, long-term speech optimization should continue to be the primary consideration for operative planning. These findings improve the current rationale for palatoplasty timing, and can aid surgeons and parents in the surgical decision-making process.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Non-Interventional Factors Influencing Velopharyngeal Function For Speech In Initial Cleft Palate Repair: A Systematic Review Protocol

BACKGROUND

This systematic review aims to inform the development of a screening tool which pre-operatively predicts which children are likely to develop velopharyngeal insufficiency, one of the causes of poor speech outcomes, following cleft palate repair. This would be highly beneficial as it would inform pre-operative counselling of parents, allow targeted speech and language therapy, and enable meaningful comparison of outcomes between surgeons, techniques, and institutions. Currently, it is unclear which factors influence speech outcomes. A systematic review investigating the non-interventional factors which potentially influence speech outcomes following cleft palate repair is warranted. This may be illuminating in itself or provide foundations for future studies.

METHODS

A systematic review will be carried out according to Cochrane methodology and reported according to PRISMA guidelines (PLoS Med 6: e1000097, 2009). Systematic review software will be used to facilitate three-stage screening by two independent reviewers experienced in cleft lip and palate. Thereafter, data extraction and GRADE assessment will be performed in duplicate by five independent reviewers experienced in cleft lip and palate. Studies reporting the proportion of patients who were recommended or underwent secondary speech surgery for velopharyngeal insufficiency following primary surgery for cleft palate will be included. The study findings will be tabulated and summarised. The primary outcome measure will be further speech surgery (either recommended or performed). The secondary outcome measure will be perceptual speech assessment for the presence of velopharyngeal insufficiency. A meta-analysis is planned. However, if this is not possible, due to the anticipated marked heterogeneity of study characteristics, pre-operative assessment, and the recorded outcome measures, a narrative synthesis will be undertaken.

DISCUSSION

This systematic review may provide sufficient data to inform the development of a screening tool to predict the risk of velopharyngeal insufficiency prior to cleft palate repair. However, it is anticipated that these findings will provide the foundation for future studies in this area.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Registered on 19 December 2016 with PROSPERO CRD42017051624.

Five-Fold Variation Among Surgeons and Hospitals in the Use of Secondary Palate Surgery

OBJECTIVE

To identify child-, surgeon- and hospital-specific factors at the time of primary cleft palate repair that are associated with the use of secondary palate surgery.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Forty-nine pediatric hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Children who underwent cleft palate repair between 1998 and 2015.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Time from primary cleft palate repair to secondary palate surgery.

RESULTS

By 5 years after the primary palate repair, 27.5% of children had undergone secondary palate surgery. In multivariable analysis, cleft type and age at primary palate repair were both associated with secondary surgery ( P < .01). Children with unilateral cleft lip and palate had a 1.69-fold increased hazard of secondary surgery (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.54-1.85) compared to children with cleft palate alone. Primary palate repair before 9 months had a 3.99-fold increased hazard of secondary surgery (95% CI: 3.39-4.07) compared to repair at 16 to 24 months of age. After adjusting for cleft type, age at repair, and procedure volume, there remained substantial variation in secondary surgery use among surgeons and hospitals ( P < .01). For children with isolated cleft palate, the predicted proportion of children undergoing secondary surgery within 5 years of primary repair ranged from 8.5% to 46.0% across surgeons and 9.1% to 49.4% across hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

There are substantial differences among surgeons and hospitals in the rates of secondary palate surgery. Further work is needed to identify causes for this variation among providers and develop interventions to reduce the need for secondary surgery.