RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Optimal Outcomes Reporting was recently introduced to categorize outcomes after cleft palate repair. We seek to propose an expanded version of Optimal Outcomes Reporting and to determine if correlation exists between the expanded outcomes and persistence with team care follow-up through age 9. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Cleft team at large pediatric hospital. PATIENTS: Patients with isolated nonsyndromic cleft palate (n = 83) born from 2001-2012. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients who continued to present at age 5 or greater were assessed for optimal outcomes. Optimal outcomes were: surgery - no fistula or velopharyngeal insufficiency; otolaryngology - no obstructive sleep apnea or signs of chronic middle ear disease; audiology - no hearing loss; speech-language pathology - no assessed need for speech therapy. RESULTS: Of the 83 patients identified, 41 were assessed for optimal outcomes. Optimal outcome in any discipline was not associated with follow-up through age 9 (0.112 ≤ p ≤ 0.999). For all disciplines, the group with suboptimal outcomes had a higher proportion of patients from geographic areas in the most disadvantaged quartile of social vulnerability index, with the strongest association in the group with suboptimal speech outcome (OR 6.75, 95% CI 0.841-81.1). CONCLUSIONS: Optimal outcomes and retention in team clinic were not statistically significantly associated, but clinically relevant associations were found between patients in the most disadvantaged quartile of social vulnerability and their outcomes. A patient-centered approach, including caregiver education about long-term care for patients with cleft palate, would allow for enhanced resource utilization to improve retention for patients of concern.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To describe the incidence and timing of provider-specific interventions for children with isolated cleft palate. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study involving review of medical records. SETTING: Multidisciplinary team care clinic at a tertiary academic children's hospital between January 2000 and July 2019. PATIENTS: Patients with isolated nonsyndromic cleft palate seen by an American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association-approved team; 138 children were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Study outcomes included incidence of secondary velopharyngeal management, tympanostomy tube insertion, speech therapy, hearing loss, dental/orthodontic treatment, and psychology interventions. Provider-specific outcomes were calculated for patients at ages 0 to 3, 3 to 5, and >5 years. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 7.0 years (interquartile range: 3.3-11.8 years). At their last team assessment, 42% of patients still had conductive hearing loss. The rate of tympanostomy tube insertions not done alongside a palatoplasty was highest for ages 3 to 5 and dropped after new American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation guidelines in 2013 (P = .015); 54% of patients received speech-language therapy during follow-up. Palatoplasty, psychology, and dental/orthodontic treatment were all less common than speech or ENT treatment (P < .01). Secondary palatoplasty was performed in 31 patients (22%). Patients who received speech, dental/orthodontic, or psychology intervention followed up longer than those who did not (9.8 vs 2.1 years, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Half of the patients terminated team follow-up by age 7, suggesting that burden of care outweighed perceived benefits of continued follow-up for many families. These results can be used to adjust protocols for children with isolated cleft palate.