Objective This study aimed to identify commonly used classification systems by cleft providers around the world, including the perceived indications and limitations of each system. Design A cross-sectional survey. Participants A total of 197 registrants from three international cleft/craniofacial meetings. Interventions Participants were sent a web-based questionnaire concerning cleft classification systems. Main Outcome Measures Frequency of commonly used classification systems, their perceived indications and limitations. Results A total of 197 respondents from 166 different centers completed the questionnaire. Healthcare professionals from all disciplines responded, with the most frequent respondents being plastic surgeons (38.1%), maxillofacial surgeons (28.4%) and orthodontists (23.9%). Eighteen different classification systems were in use. The most frequently used systems were the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) (35.5%), LAHSHAL (34.0%), and Veau (32.5%) classification systems. Most respondents (32.5%) indicated that anatomical and morphological characteristics are essential components of a classification system. However, respondents indicated that their current classification systems lacked sufficient description of cleft extension and severity. Conclusions Great variety in the use of classification systems exists among craniofacial specialists internationally. The results recommend the usage of the LAHSHAL classification of OFCs, due to its comprehensiveness, relatively high implementation rate globally, convenience of usage and complementarity with the ICD-10 system. Moreover, it can overcome deficiencies inextricably linked to ICD-10, such as incapacity to describe laterality and clefts of the alveolus. More international exposure to the merits of using the LAHSHAL classification system would be highly recommended.

Objective The objective of this study was to investigate how cleft surgeons classify palatal fistulas. We focused on three different anatomical locations (ie, hard palate, soft palate, junction hard/soft palate) to analyze agreement/disagreement at various anatomical locations. Design Cross-sectional survey study. Participants Participants in an international webinar that focused on palatal fistula treatment were included. Intervention Participants were presented with a survey pre- and post-webinar. Main outcomes Frequency of used classification systems for classifying oronasal fistulas and the inter-rater reliability of the Pittsburgh classification system. Results A total of 141 participants completed the questionnaires prior to the webinar and 109 participants completed the survey after the webinar. In total, four classification systems were used (ie, Pittsburgh, Pakistan Comprehensive Fistula Classification [PCFC], anatomical and ‘other’). The Pittsburgh classification was the most commonly used system in all cases. However, Pittsburgh inter-rater reliability was low (κ = 0.136 pre-webinar, and κ = 0.174 post-webinar). Surprisingly, a substantial shift was observed from the anatomical to Pittsburgh classification after the webinar, indicating increased awareness of the usability of the Pittsburgh classification system. Conclusions This study demonstrates a large heterogeneity with regards to the classification of cleft palate fistulas. Interestingly, a shift was observed from the anatomical to Pittsburgh classification after the webinar. However, the inter-rater reliability for using the Pittsburgh classification was low. Classifying palatal fistulas in a homogenous fashion could enhance comparison of primary palate repair and could improve treatment of palatal fistulas.