Structural outcomes in the Cleft Care UK study. Part 2: dento-facial outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To compare facial appearance and dento-alveolar relationship outcomes from the CSAG (1998) and CCUK (2013) studies. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: Five-year-olds born with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate. Those in the original CSAG were treated in a dispersed model of care with low-volume operators. Those in CCUK were treated in a more centralized, high-volume operator model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared facial appearance using frontal view photographs (252 CCUK, 239 CSAG) and dental relationships using study models (198 CCUK, 223 CSAG). Facial appearance was scored by a panel of six assessors using a standardized and validated outcome tool. Dento-alveolar relationships were scored by two assessors using the 5-Year-Olds' Index. Ordinal regression was used to compare results between surveys. RESULTS: Excellent or good facial appearance was seen in 36.2% of CCUK compared with 31.9% in CSAG. In CCUK, 21.6% were rated as having poor or very poor facial appearance compared with 27.6% in CSAG. The percentage rated as having excellent or good dento-alveolar relationships was 53.0% in CCUK compared with 29.6% in CSAG. In CCUK, 19.2% were rated as having poor or very poor dento-alveolar relationships compared to 36.3% in CSAG. The odds ratios for improved outcome in CCUK compared to CSAG were 1.43 (95% CI 1.03, 1.97) for facial appearance and 2.29 (95% CI 1.47, 3.55) for dento-alveolar relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Facial and dento-alveolar outcomes were better in CCUK children compared to those in CSAG.

The Cleft Care UK study. Part 4: perceptual speech outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the perceptual speech outcomes from the Cleft Care UK (CCUK) study and compare them to the 1998 Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) audit. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: A cross-sectional study of 248 children born with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate, between 1 April 2005 and 31 March 2007 who underwent speech assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Centre-based specialist speech and language therapists (SLT) took speech audio-video recordings according to nationally agreed guidelines. Two independent listeners undertook the perceptual analysis using the CAPS-A Audit tool. Intra- and inter-rater reliability were tested. RESULTS: For each speech parameter of intelligibility/distinctiveness, hypernasality, palatal/palatalization, backed to velar/uvular, glottal, weak and nasalized consonants, and nasal realizations, there was strong evidence that speech outcomes were better in the CCUK children compared to CSAG children. The parameters which did not show improvement were nasal emission, nasal turbulence, hyponasality and lateral/lateralization. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that centralization of cleft care into high volume centres has resulted in improvements in UK speech outcomes in five-year-olds with unilateral cleft lip and palate. This may be associated with the development of a specialized workforce. Nevertheless, there still remains a group of children with significant difficulties at school entry.