Evaluation of Multidisciplinary Team Clinic for Patients With Isolated Cleft Lip

Continuous Multidisciplinary Care for Patients With Orofacial Clefts-Should the Follow-up Interval Depend on the Cleft Entity?

Objective

The multidisciplinary follow-up of patients with cleft lip with or without palate (CL/P) is organized differently in specialized centers worldwide. The aim of this study was to evaluate the different treatment needs of patients with different manifestations of CL/P and to potentially adapt the frequency and timing of checkup examinations accordingly.

Design

We retrospectively analyzed the data of all patients attending the CL/P consultation hour at a tertiary care center between June 2005 and August 2020 (n = 1126). We defined 3 groups of cleft entities: (1) isolated clefts of lip or lip and alveolus (CL/A), (2) isolated clefts of the hard and/or soft palate, and (3) complete clefts of lip, alveolus and palate (CLP). Timing and type of therapy recommendations given by the specialists of different disciplines were analyzed for statistical differences.

Results

Patients with CLP made up the largest group (n = 537), followed by patients with cleft of the soft palate (n = 371) and CL ± A (n = 218). There were significant differences between the groups with regard to type and frequency of treatment recommendations. A therapy was recommended in a high proportion of examinations in all groups at all ages.

Conclusion

Although there are differences between cleft entities, the treatment need of patients with orofacial clefts is generally high during the growth period. Patients with CL/A showed a similarly high treatment demand and should be monitored closely. A close follow-up for patients with diagnosis of CL/P is crucial and measures should be taken to increase participation in follow-up appointments.

The Method of Surgical Lip Repair Affects Speech Outcomes in Children With Bilateral Cleft Lip and Palate

OBJECTIVE

It was hypothesized that lip repair protocols in children with bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) would affect development of bilabial consonants /m/ /b/ /p/. This study compared speech outcomes in 2 surgical groups.

DESIGN

A retrospective case note investigation.

SETTING

UK Cleft Centre (2000-2009).

PATIENTS

Forty-nine children with complete BCLP, of whom 26 had a 1-stage and 23 a 2-stage bilateral cleft lip repair.

INTERVENTIONS

One-stage cleft lip repair versus a 2-staged cleft lip repair.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Bilabial consonant production at 18 months, 3 and 5 years of age. Cleft Speech Characteristics (CSCs) at age 5.

RESULTS

At age 18 months, 81% of the 1-stage lip repair group and 4% of the 2-stage lip repair group produced bilabial consonants (P <·0001, Fisher test). At age 3 years, 81% of the 1-stage and 26% of the 2-stage lip repair groups produced bilabial consonants (P =·0133, Fisher test). At age 5 years, both groups had similar bilabial consonant production, but children in the 2-stage lip repair group had more frequent and severe CSCs (P = ·0037, χ²).

CONCLUSION

A 1-stage lip repair for children with complete BCLP resulted in better bilabial consonant production at 18 months and 3 years of age than a 2-stage lip repair. At age 5 years both groups had bilabial consonants but children in the 2-stage lip repair group had worse CSCs. The surgical protocol for bilateral cleft lip repair affected speech outcome in children with BCLP.