Issues involved in the phenotypic classification of orofacial clefts ascertained through a state birth defects registry for the North Carolina Cleft Outcomes Study.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic studies involving birth defects are extremely sensitive to phenotype accuracy and precision. We devised a case review and classification protocol for a project to study school achievement in children with idiopathic, nonsyndromic orofacial clefts to improve the reliability of phenotypic classification from the statewide birth defects registry. METHODS: Surveillance-program abstraction data and medical records at the birth or treating hospitals were used when available. Exclusion criteria included: median cleft lip; Tessier cleft; premaxillary agenesis; presence of a recognizable syndrome, phenotype, association, or sequence (other than Robin sequence); clefts with other malformations not considered to be normal or common variants in the newborn; and cases with documented or suspected genetic or teratogenic causes. RESULTS: Of 712 children identified with orofacial clefts, 153 were excluded, leaving 559 nonsyndromic orofacial cleft cases of unknown cause in the final study. These cases were grouped into the following clinically meaningful types: cleft lip with or without cleft alveolus; cleft lip and cleft palate; and cleft palate only. This review and classification process resulted in the elimination of 21.5% of the original cohort of identified cases, with most exclusions being due to suspected syndromic associations. CONCLUSION: Verbatim descriptions of the clinical findings are critical for accurate classification of diagnoses. This review process improved the precision of orofacial cleft phenotype classification for our study. Precision would have been further improved if all of the cases had verbatim descriptions of diagnoses and all medical records could have been reviewed by the classification team.

Nasal Airway Dysfunction in Children with Cleft Lip and Cleft Palate: Results of a Cross-Sectional Population-Based Study, with Anatomical and Surgical Considerations.

BACKGROUND: The aesthetic aspects of the cleft lip nasal deformity have been appreciated for over a century, but the functional implications have remained largely underappreciated or misunderstood. This study describes the frequency and severity of nasal obstructive symptoms among children with cleft lip and/or cleft palate, addressing the hypotheses that age, cleft type, and severity are associated with the development of nasal obstructive symptoms. METHODS: Children with nonsyndromic cleft lip and/or cleft palate and a comparison group of unaffected children born from 1997 to 2003 were identified through the North Carolina Birth Defects Monitoring Program and birth certificates. Nasal airway obstruction was measured using the validated Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation scale. RESULTS: The survey was completed by parental proxy for 176 children with cleft lip and/or cleft palate and 333 unaffected children. Nasal obstructive symptoms were more frequently reported in cleft lip with cleft palate compared with unaffected children (p < 0.0001); children who had isolated cleft lip with or without alveolus and isolated cleft palate were not statistically different from unaffected children. Patients with unilateral cleft lip with cleft palate were found to be more severely affected than bilateral cases. Nasal obstruction was observed in early childhood, although severity worsened in adolescence. CONCLUSIONS: This population-based study reports a high prevalence of nasal obstructive symptoms in children with cleft lip and/or cleft palate based on type and severity of the cleft. The authors encourage cleft teams to consider using this or similar screening methods to identify which children may benefit from functional rhinoplasty. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, I.

Stigma experiences in youth with facial differences: a multi-site study of adolescents and their mothers.

OBJECTIVES: To describe stigma experiences of adolescents with congenital and acquired facial differences. DESIGN: Used baseline cross-sectional stigma-related responses from a four site (Seattle WA, Galveston TX, Chicago IL and Chapel Hill NC) US study enrolling 185 English speaking, US participants ages 1118 years old with facial differences (60% male; 80% congenital conditions). Closed-ended, self-administered questions drawn from the Youth Quality of Life Instrument Facial Differences Module (YQOL-FD) determined perceptions of stigmatization. Mothers (n=153) were independently asked seven matching questions. RESULTS: Frequencies report combined responses of 'sometimes,' 'fairly often,' and 'very often.' Mother's responses are in parentheses. *35% (47%) noticed people staring at their face in the past week. * 28% (43%) talked with others about how their face looks in the past month. * 29% (31%) heard others say something about their face in the past month. * 32% (32%) told peers about their facial difference in the past month. * 12% (12%) felt left out of doing things with peers because of how their face looks in the past month. * 11% (8%) got into a fight because of how their face looks in the past month. * 20% (18%) were teased about how their face looks in the past month. CONCLUSIONS: Stigma experiences were frequently reported by youth with facial differences and were correlated with independent parental report. This level of stigma suggests that media and public health interventions may be warranted to reduce discrimination, prejudice and negative adolescent social experiences related to facial difference.