Factors Associated With Delay in Cleft Surgery at a Tertiary Children's Hospital in a Major US Metropolitan City.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with late cleft repair at a US tertiary children's hospital. DESIGN: Retrospective study of children with CL/P using Children's Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA) records. SETTING: US tertiary children's hospital. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing primary CL or CP repair at CHLA from 2009 to 2018. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of children who had delayed primary CL repair or CP repair using CHLA and American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association (ACPA) guidelines and factors associated with late surgery. RESULTS: In total, 805 patients-503 (62.5%) who had CL repair, 302 (37.5%) CP repair-were included. Using CHLA protocol, 14.3% of patients seeking CL repair had delayed surgery. Delay was significantly associated with female gender, non-Hispanic ethnicity, Spanish primary language, government insurance, bilateral cleft, cleft lip and palate (CLP), and syndromic diagnosis. Using ACPA guidelines, 5.4% had delayed surgery. Female gender and syndromic diagnosis were significantly associated with delay and remained significant after adjustment for confounders in multivariate models. For CP repair, 60.3% of patients had delayed surgery using CHLA protocol. Cleft lip and palate diagnosis, complete cleft, syndromic diagnosis, and longer travel distance were significantly associated with delay. Using ACPA guidelines, 28.5% had delayed surgery; however, significant association with patient variables was not consistently observed. CONCLUSIONS: Delay in cleft surgery occurs most often for patients seeking CP repair and is associated with female gender, non-Hispanic ethnicity, Spanish language, government insurance, and bilateral CL, CLP, or syndromic diagnoses. Initiatives should aim to optimize cleft surgery delivery for these subpopulations.

The Monobloc Distraction With Facial Bipartition: Outcomes of Simultaneous Multidimensional Facial Movement Compared With Monobloc Distraction or Facial Bipartition Alone.

BACKGROUND: Although combined monobloc facial bipartition with distraction (MFBD) may simultaneously correct multiple facial dimensions in patients with syndromic craniosynostoses, complication risks limit its use. This study reassesses MFBD complications and outcomes to compare safety and efficacy to monobloc distraction (MD) and facial bipartition (FB) alone. METHODS: A retrospective review of MFBD, MD, and FB cases for 10 years at a tertiary children's hospital was performed. Patient demographics and surgical variables were compared between cohorts. Distraction distance was compared between MFBD and MD. Correction of interdacryon distance in MFBD compared with FB was measured on preoperative and postoperative computed tomographic scans. SPSS 17 was used for data analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-two total patients, 11 MFBD, 4 MD, and 7 FB, met the inclusion criteria. Three MFBD (27.3%) patients experienced complications, including 1 osteomyelitis and 2 hardware displacements. One MD patient (25%) experienced a postoperative complication consisting of a wound infection. Three FB patients (42.9%) experienced either cerebrospinal fluid leak, seroma, mucocele, hardware exposure, and/or orbital dystopia (n = 1 each). Patients with MFBD had significantly longer intensive care unit stay (P ≤ 0.05), but no difference in hospital stay (P = 0.421). Mean distraction length was similar between MFBD and MD (P = 0.612). There was no significant difference in final (P = 0.243) or change (P = 0.189) in interdacryon distance between MFBD and FB patients. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, MFBD has similar complication rates compared with MD and FB alone. Given equivalent safety and postoperative correction of facial dimensions, MFBD could be more widely considered for select patients.

Simultaneous Midface Advancement and Orthognathic Surgery: A Powerful Technique for Managing Midface Hypoplasia and Malocclusion.

BACKGROUND: Midface hypoplasia dramatically affects the normative facial cascade. Simultaneous Le Fort III and Le Fort I procedures (Le Fort III/I) provide a powerful tool for achieving significant midface advancement. This study presents the authors' approach for addressing midface hypoplasia in the setting of class III malocclusion using Le Fort III/I advancement. METHODS: This was an institutional review board-approved retrospective review of patients who underwent Le Fort III/I advancement at the authors' institution from 2009 to 2019. Demographic, surgical, and postoperative data were recorded. The authors' operative technique and surgical pearls are described. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients met inclusion criteria, 15 male patients (60 percent) and 10 female patients (40 percent). Patient age ranged from 14.9 to 21.6 years. Diagnoses included Crouzon syndrome, nonsyndromic developmental skeletal dysplasia, cleft lip/palate, Klippel-Feil syndrome, Apert syndrome, Van den Ende-Gupta syndrome, and Pfeiffer syndrome. Le Fort III advancements averaged 6.18 ± 1.38 mm and Le Fort I advancements averaged 6.70 ± 2.48 mm. Thirteen patients underwent simultaneous bilateral sagittal split osteotomy with average movement of 5.85 ± 1.21 mm. Average follow-up was 1.3 ± 1.0 years. One patient experienced intraoperative cerebrospinal fluid leak that resolved with expectant management. Three patients experienced major complications (12 percent) postoperatively necessitating repeated orthognathic operations. Ten patients experienced minor complications (40 percent). Average length of stay was 10 days, with all patients achieving improvement of their facial profile. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' experience reaffirms the relative safety of simultaneous Le Fort III/I advancement. This technique should be considered in select patients with global midface retrusion and class III malocclusion. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.