Orthognathic Surgery Rate in Cleft Care
Laya Jacob, Artur Fahradyan, Philip Paulson, Jordan R. Wlodarczyk, Erik M. Wolfswinkel, Christian Jimenez, Mark M. Urata, Jeffrey A. Hammoudeh
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the true need for orthognathic surgery in patients with repaired cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) at a high-volume craniofacial center. METHODS: An institutional retrospective review of patients with CL/P born between 1975 and 2008 was performed. Patients with adequate documentation reflecting cleft care who were ≥ 18 years at the time of last craniofacial/dentistry follow-up were included. Patients with non-paramedian clefts or a comorbid craniofacial syndrome were excluded. Primary outcome variable was the total proportion of patients with CL/P who either underwent or were referred for orthognathic surgery Le Fort I (LF1) to correct midface hypoplasia. Secondary outcome variables were associations between cleft phenotype, midface hypoplasia severity, and number of cleft related surgeries with the eventual LF1 referral/recipiency. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-seven patients with CL/P met inclusion criteria. A total of 90/177 (51%) patients underwent corrective LF1; however, 110/177 (62%) of patients were referred for surgery. Patients with secondary cleft palate involvement were referred for and underwent LF1 at significantly greater rates than those without secondary palate involvement (referred: 65% versus 13%, P = 0.001; underwent: 55% versus 0%, P < 0.001). Patients with bilateral cleft lip/palate were referred for and underwent LF1 at significantly higher rates than those with unilateral cleft lip/palate (referred: 71.0% versus 50.4%, P= 0.04; underwent: 84% versus 71%, P = 0.02). Number of secondary palate surgeries was positively correlated with increased LF1 referral (P = 0.02) but not LF1 recipiency (P = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of orthognathic surgery redundant in patients with repaired CL/P was 51% at our institution, marginally above the higher end of previously reported rates. However, this number is an underrepresentation of the true requirement for LF1 as 62% of patients were referred for surgical intervention of midface hypoplasia. This distinction should be considered when counseling families.