The Slavcleft: a three-center study of the outcome of treatment of cleft lip and palate. Nasolabial appearance.

BACKGROUND: There is a multitude of protocols of treatment of cleft lip and palate (CLP) worldwide differing in number of operations, surgical techniques, and timings of surgeries. Despite, facial appearance in subjects with CLP is rarely ideal and residual stigmata are easy to notice in many patients irrespective of the protocol. The prospective controlled investigations are optimal for comparing effectiveness of treatment protocols. Because prospective studies are very challenging to perform in CLP field, it is reasonable to retrospectively assess different surgical protocols to identify the promising ones and then to test them in a prospective way. METHODS: Our objective was to assess the nasolabial appearance in a preadolescent Slavic population with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) by using the 0-200 numeric scale with reference photographs. Patients treated in Warsaw, Poland (n = 32), Prague, Czech Republic (n = 26) and Bratislava, Slovakia (n = 17) were included in this retrospective study. Each cleft center used a unique surgical protocol. Two panels of professional raters (n = 7) and laypeople (n = 10) scored blindly the nasolabial esthetics on cropped frontal and profile images with cropped reference photograph present on the same slide. Intra- and inter-rater agreement was assessed with Cronbach's alpha, intraclass correlation coefficients, t-tests, and Bland-Altman plots. Inter-group differences were evaluated with one-way ANOVA and regression analysis. RESULTS: The agreement within and between raters was acceptable. We found that patients treated in Warsaw, Prague, and Bratislava showed comparable nasolabial appearance on frontal and profile photographs when judged by both professional raters (p > 0.05) and laypeople (p > 0.05). Regression analysis did not identify influence of gender, group (i.e., Warsaw, Prague, and Bratislava), age at lip repair, surgeon, and age at photographic assessment on esthetic outcome (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study showed that none of the surgical protocols showed superiority to produce good nasolabial appearance.

The Slavcleft: A three-center study of the outcome of treatment of cleft lip and palate. Part 2: Dental arch relationships.

PURPOSE: Our aim was to evaluate the dental arch relationship in a preadolescent Slavic population with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) by using the Goslon Yardstick. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients treated in Warsaw, Poland (n = 32), Prague, Czech Republic (n = 33) and Bratislava, Slovakia (n = 30) were included in this retrospective study. Each cleft center used a unique surgical protocol. Three raters scored blindly the dental arch relationship on plaster models. Intra- and inter-rater agreement were assessed with kappa statistics, and differences between the groups were evaluated with one-way analysis of variance. Intra-rater agreement was very good (k > 0.825), while inter-rater agreement was either good or very good (kappa >0.703). RESULTS: We found that patients treated in Warsaw showed a more favorable dental arch relationship (Goslon score = 2.58, SD = 0.77) than patients treated in Prague (Goslon score = 3.21, SD = 1.04). Patients treated in Bratislava showed an intermediate Goslon score (3.07; SD = 0.99). CONCLUSION: This study showed that the dental arch relationships in patients treated in Warsaw with a one-stage repair were more favorable than in patients treated in Prague and Bratislava with a two-stage protocol and comparable to the best results obtained in the Eurocleft and Americleft studies.

The Slav-cleft: A three-center study of the outcome of treatment of cleft lip and palate. Part 1: Craniofacial morphology.

Results of a comparison of the outcomes of treatment of cleft lip and palate can be affected by growth characteristics of populations from which subjects with the clefts are derived. Moreover, conventional cephalometric techniques used in cleft studies for analysis of facial morphology provide only a partial description of shape and are confounded by biases regarding the reference structures. In this retrospective comparison, craniofacial morphology of preadolescent patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate treated in Warsaw (n = 35, age = 10.6 years, SD = 1.2), Prague (n = 38, age = 11.6 years, SD = 1.4), and Bratislava (n = 26, age = 10.5 years, SD = 1.6) were evaluated on cephalograms with the cephalometric method used in the Eurocleft study and geometric morphometrics. We found that patients treated in Warsaw showed slightly more favorable outcomes than in Prague and Bratislava. The differences were related primarily to the position of maxillary alveolar process, cranial base, mandibular angle, and soft tissues. Although no association between a component of treatment protocol and the outcome was found, it is possible that organizational factors such as participation of high-volume, experienced surgeons contributed to these results.

Palate dimensions in six-year-old children with unilateral cleft lip and palate: a six-center study on dental casts.

OBJECTIVE: To compare palatal dimensions in 6-year-old children with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) treated by different protocols with those of noncleft children. DESIGN: Retrospective intercenter outcome study. Patients : Upper dental casts from 129 children with repaired UCLP and 30 controls were analyzed by the trigonometric method. SETTING: Six European cleft centers. Main outcome measures : Sagittal, transverse, and vertical dimensions of the palate were observed. STATISTICS: Palate variables were analyzed with descriptive methods and nonparametric tests. Regarding several various characteristics measured on a relatively small number of subjects, hierarchical, k-means clustering, and principal component analyses were used. RESULTS: Mean values of the observed dimensions for five cleft groups differed significantly from the control (p < .05). The group with one-stage closure of the cleft differed significantly from all other cleft groups in most variables (p < .05). Principal component analysis of all 159 cases identified three clusters with specific morphologic characteristics of the palate. A similar number of treated children were classified into each cluster, while all children without clefts were classified in the same cluster. The percentage of treated children from a particular group that fit this cluster ranged from 0% to 70% and increased with age at palatal closure and number of primary surgical procedures. CONCLUSION: At 6 years of age, children with stepwise repair and hard palate closure after the age of two more frequently result in palatal dimensions of noncleft control than children with earlier palatal closure and one-stage cleft repair.