RESUMO
Eye-tracking has become an increasingly popular research tool within the field of cleft lip and/or palate (CL+/-P). Despite this, there are no standardized protocols for conducting research. Our objective was to conduct a literature review of the methodology and outcomes of previous publications using eye-tracking in CL+/-P. Methods: The PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify all articles published up to August 2022. All articles were screened by two independent reviewers. Inclusion criteria included using eye-tracking, image stimuli of CL+/-P, and outcome reporting using areas of interest (AOIs). Exclusion criteria included non-English studies, conference articles, and image stimuli of conditions other than CL+/-P. Results: Forty articles were identified, and 16 met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Thirteen studies only displayed images of individuals following cleft lip surgery with three only displaying unrepaired cleft lips. Significant variation was found in study design, particularly in the AOIs used to report gaze outcomes. Ten studies asked participants to provide an outcome score alongside eye-tracking; however, only four compared outcome data to eye-tracking data. This review is primarily limited by the minimal number of publications in this area. Conclusions: Eye-tracking can be a powerful tool in evaluating appearance outcomes following CL+/-P surgery. It is currently limited by the lack of standardized research methodology and varied study design. Before future work, a replicable protocol should be developed to maximize the potential of this technology.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Children affected by premature fusion of the cranial sutures due to craniosynostosis can present with raised intracranial pressure and (turri)brachycephalic head shapes that require surgical treatment. Spring-assisted posterior vault expansion (SA-PVE) is the surgical technique of choice at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children (GOSH), London, UK. This study aims to report the SA-PVE clinical experience of GOSH to date. METHODS: A retrospective review was carried out including all SA-PVE cases performed at GOSH between 2008 and 2020. Demographic and clinical data were recorded including genetic diagnosis, craniofacial surgical history, surgical indication and assessment, age at time of surgery (spring insertion and removal), operative time, in-patient stay, blood transfusion requirements, additional/secondary (cranio)facial procedures, and complications. RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2020, 200 SA-PVEs were undertaken in 184 patients (61% male). The study population consisted of patients affected by syndromic (65%) and non-syndromic disorders. Concerns regarding raised intracranial pressure were the surgical driver in 75% of the cases, with the remainder operated for shape correction. Median age for SA-PVE was 19 months (range, 2-131). Average operative time for first SA-PVE was 150 min and 87 for spring removal. Median in-patient stay was 3 nights, and 88 patients received a mean of 204.4 ml of blood transfusion at time of spring insertion. A single SA-PVE sufficed in 156 patients (85%) to date (26 springs still in situ at time of this analysis); 16 patients underwent repeat SA-PVE, whilst 12 underwent rigid redo. A second SA-PVE was needed in significantly more cases when the first SA-PVE was performed before age 1 year. Complications occurred in 26 patients with a total of 32 events, including one death. Forty-one patients underwent fronto-orbital remodelling at spring removal and 22 required additional cranio(maxillo)facial procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Spring-assisted posterior vault expansion is a safe, efficient, and effective procedure based on our 12-year experience. Those that are treated early in life might require a repeat SA-PVE. Long-term follow-up is recommended as some would require additional craniomaxillofacial correction later in life.