Search

There is still no unanimous agreement on the optimal surgical protocol(s) for the treatment of unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP), and a huge variety of protocols are employed by cleft centres across the world. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare reported patient outcomes of the Oslo protocol (and modifications) (OP) and delayed hard palate closure protocols (DHPCP) from a multidisciplinary perspective. A systematic search of multiple databases was conducted until September 2023. Studies reporting any patient outcomes of these protocols were included. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for evidence synthesis, including comparisons of results between the types of protocol. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the ROBINS-I tool. In total, 62 articles (42 studies) reporting patients with UCLP were reviewed, involving 1281 patients following the OP and 655 following DHPCP. Equally poor long-term sagittal maxillofacial growth was found, and similar results for velopharyngeal insufficiency and nasolabial appearance. In contrast, OP was associated with a lower rate of oronasal fistulas. Disregarding the scarcity of comparable evidence for some domains, the results of this review, overall, favour OP over DHPCP. However, caution should be taken when interpreting the results on velopharyngeal insufficiency and oronasal fistulas, since the possibility of confounding and other biases remains.

The European Reference Network for Rare Craniofacial Aanomalies and Ear-Nose-Throat disorders aims to improve care for patients with such afflictions, including cleft lip and palate (CL/P) across Europe. Cleft treatment remains varied throughout European centers, inhibiting meaningful comparison of treatment outcomes. To overcome these issues, a European-wide common CL/P dataset and registry was developed, facilitating standardized treatment endpoints and outcome measures for international comparison and benchmarking of CL/P centers. Questionnaires and semi-structured interviews were used to determine the set-up of the registry. Previous CL/P initiatives were analyzed to create an initial dataset, refined through consensus meetings. In total, 87 cleft specialists working in specialized CL/P centers from 16 European nations participated. Consensus on a common dataset was reached. A “Level 1” dataset, with mandatory clinical and patient-reported outcome measures, and “Level 2” dataset with additional outcome measures. Finally, 2 dashboards were developed for data dissemination. The development of the European CL/P common dataset and registry tackled challenges with resource disparities, variations in specialists within CL/P teams, regulatory differences in patient data usage, patient-reported outcome measures availability in European languages, and use of assessment tools. This study described the successful development of the European Reference Network for Rare Craniofacial Aanomalies and Ear-Nose-Throat disorders CL/P common dataset and registry. This achievement will help improve patient care and outcomes for patients with CL/P in Europe. Furthermore, this study provides useful information for initiatives with similar aims.

Background:The CLEFT-Q is a questionnaire developed for patients with a cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P). Numerous scales have been implemented as part of the ICHOM Standard Set for CL/P. Although validated for completion by patients only, clinicians noted that caregivers are often involved in completion of the scales. Aim of the study was to promote further standardization of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in pediatric patients by examining the preferences of patients and parents concerning the reporter type. Moreover, possible discrepancies in outcomes between reporter types were explored. Methods: Data from 567 patients with CL/P and their caregivers that completed scales of the CLEFT-Q questionnaire were collected. Reporter group sizes and proportions were examined at the ages of 8, 12, and 15 years to determine the preferred manner of completion. Mean outcomes were analyzed per scale at the 3 ages, and compared between the 3 reporter groups: “patient,” “caregiver,” and “together.” Results: In all age-groups, the majority completed the PROMs together. Concerning the reporter types per age-group, an upward trend was seen in the proportion of patients that completed the scales alone. In the caregiver group, a downward trend was observed, and the highest proportion of parents that completed the scales was found at age 8. No significant differences were found between the reporter types in any of the scales. Conclusion: Even if a PROM questionnaire is validated for patient report only, it is recommended to record the reporter type when a pediatric PROM is completed. In order to capture outcomes that represent the patient’s voice validly and reliably, though with support of the caregiver, a pediatric PROM should be filled out by the patient alone and thereafter evaluated with the caregiver(s). Concerning the CLEFT-Q, there seems to be demand for a validated parent-version of the s

OBJECTIVES: Speech problems in patients with a cleft palate are often complex and multifactorial. Finding the optimal way of monitoring these problems is challenging. The International Consortium of Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) has developed a set of standardised outcome measures at specific ages for patients with a cleft lip and/or palate, including measures of speech assessment. This study evaluates the type and timing of speech outcome measures currently included in this ICHOM Standard Set. Additionally, speech assessments in other cleft protocols and initiatives are discussed. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: An international, multicentre study was set up including centres from the USA and the Netherlands. Outcomes of clinical measures and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) were collected retrospectively according to the ICHOM set. PROM data from a field test of the CLEFT-Q, a questionnaire developed and validated for patients with a cleft, were collected, including participants from countries with all sorts of income statuses, to examine the value of additional moments of measurement that are used in other cleft initiatives.Data from 2500 patients were included. Measured outcomes contained univariate regression analyses, trend analyses, t-tests, correlations and floor and ceiling effects. RESULTS: PROMs correlated low to moderate with clinical outcome measures. Clinical outcome measures correlated low to moderate with each other too. In contrast, two CLEFT-Q Scales correlated strongly with each other. All PROMs and the Percent Consonants Correct (PCC) showed an effect of age. In patients with an isolated cleft palate, a ceiling effect was found in the Intelligibility in Context Scale. CONCLUSION: Recommendations for an optimal speech outcome assessment in cleft patients are made. Measurement moments of different cleft protocols and initiatives are considered in this