Objective: To provide an inventory of oronasal fistula repair techniques alongside expert commentary on which techniques are appropriate for each fistula type. Design: A 4-stage approach was used to develop a consensus on surgical techniques available for fistula repair: (1) in-person discussion of oronasal fistula cases among cleft surgeons, (2) development of a schema for fistula management using transcripts of the in-person case discussion, (3) evaluation of the preliminary schema via a web-based survey of additional cleft surgeons, and (4) revision of the management schema using survey responses. Participants: Six cleft surgeons participated in the in-person case discussion. Eleven additional surgeons participated in the web-based survey. Participants had diverse training experiences, having completed residency and fellowship at 20 different hospitals. Results: A schema for fistula management was developed, organized by fistula location. The schema catalogues all viable approaches for each location. For fistulae involving the soft palate, the schema stresses the importance of evaluating for velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) and incorporating VPI management into fistula repair. For fistulae involving the hard palate, the schema separately enumerates the techniques available for nasal lining repair and for oral lining repair in each region. The schema also catalogues the diversity of approaches to lingual- and labioalveolar fistula, including variation in timing, orthodontic preparation, and simultaneous alveolar bone grafting. Conclusions: This study employed consensus methods to create a comprehensive inventory of available fistula repair techniques and to identify preferential techniques among a diverse group of surgeons.

Background: Improving surgeons’ technical performance may reduce their frequency of postoperative complications. The authors conducted a pilot trial to evaluate the feasibility of a surgeon-delivered audit and feedback intervention incorporating peer surgical coaching on technical performance among surgeons performing cleft palate repair, in advance of a future effectiveness trial. Methods: A nonrandomized, two-arm, unblinded pilot trial enrolled surgeons performing cleft palate repair. Participants completed a baseline audit of fistula incidence. Participants with a fistula incidence above the median were allocated to an intensive feedback intervention that included selecting a peer surgical coach, observing the coach perform palate repair, reviewing operative video of their own surgical technique with the coach, and proposing and implementing changes in their technique. All others were allocated to simple feedback (receiving audit results). Outcomes assessed were proportion of surgeons completing the baseline audit, disclosing their fistula incidence to peers, and completing the feedback intervention. Results: Seven surgeons enrolled in the trial. All seven completed the baseline audit and disclosed their fistula incidence to other participants. The median baseline fistula incidence was 0.4 percent (range, 0 to 10.5 percent). Two surgeons were unable to receive the feedback intervention. Of the five remaining surgeons, two were allocated to intensive feedback and three to simple feedback. All surgeons completed their assigned feedback intervention. Among surgeons receiving intensive feedback, fistula incidence was 5.9 percent at baseline and 0.0 percent following feedback (adjusted OR, 0.98; 95 percent CI, 0.44 to 2.17). Conclusion: Surgeon-delivered audit and feedback incorporating peer coaching on technical performance was feasible for surgeons.