ABSTRACT
The current surgical techniques used in cleft repair are well established, but different centers use different approaches. To determine the best treatment for patients, a multi-center comparative study is required. In this study, we surveyed all craniofacial departments registered with the German Society of Maxillofacial Surgery to determine which cleft repair techniques are currently in use. Our findings revealed much variation in cleft repair between different centers. Although most centers did use a two-stage approach, the operative techniques and timing of lip and palate closure were different in every center. This shows that a retrospective comparative analysis of patient outcome between the participating centers is not possible and illustrates the need for prospective comparative studies to establish the optimal technique for reconstructive cleft surgery.
Subject(s)
Cleft Lip/surgery , Cleft Palate/surgery , Surgery, Oral/statistics & numerical data , Age Factors , Germany , Humans , Infant , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , Surgery, Oral/methods , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
Orthognathic surgery has always been a classical focus of maxillofacial surgery. Since more than 100 years, various surgical techniques for mandibular repositioning have been developed and clinically tested. Since the establishment of plate and screw osteosynthesis, orthognathic surgery became more stable and safe. Nowadays, different surgical methods for mobilising the mandible are existing. This international multicenter analysis (n = 51 hospitals) is providing first evidence based data for the current use of different surgical methods. The dominating techniques were Obwegeser/dal Pont (61%) followed by Hunsuck/Epker (37%) and Perthes/Schlössmann (29%). The main osteosynthesis materials were plates (82%), bicortical screws (23.5%), or a combination of both (5.9%). 47% of all centers reported to use several surgical methods at the same time, depending on the anatomical problem and the surgeon's preference. This shows that different surgical methods seem to work as comparable, safe, and reliable procedures in everydays clinical practise. On this basis, further prospective studies could evaluate possible advantages for our patients.
