A Standardized Protocol for the Prospective Follow-Up of Cleft Lip and Palate Patients

Salimi, Negar; Aleksejūnienė, Jolanta; Edwin, Yen; Angelina, Loo

doi:10.1177/1055665618771422

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Different concepts to organize the follow-up for patients with clefts have been suggested and implemented (Hemprich et al, 2006; Capone and Sykes, 2007; Taib et al, 2015; Salimi et al, 2019). Most agree on the importance of an interdisciplinary approach with professionals from different specialties addressing their area of expertise on the one hand and on the other hand cooperating closely with the other participating specialists to achieve the optimum outcome at all levels.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Continuous Multidisciplinary Care for Patients With Orofacial Clefts—Should the Follow-up Interval Depend on the Cleft Entity?

Sander

Grau

Kloss‐Brandstätter

et al. 2021

The Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The multidisciplinary follow-up of patients with cleft lip with or without palate (CL/P) is organized differently in specialized centers worldwide. The aim of this study was to evaluate the different treatment needs of patients with different manifestations of CL/P and to potentially adapt the frequency and timing of checkup examinations accordingly. Design We retrospectively analyzed the data of all patients attending the CL/P consultation hour at a tertiary care center between June 2005 and August 2020 ( n = 1126). We defined 3 groups of cleft entities: (1) isolated clefts of lip or lip and alveolus (CL/A), (2) isolated clefts of the hard and/or soft palate, and (3) complete clefts of lip, alveolus and palate (CLP). Timing and type of therapy recommendations given by the specialists of different disciplines were analyzed for statistical differences. Results Patients with CLP made up the largest group ( n = 537), followed by patients with cleft of the soft palate ( n = 371) and CL ± A ( n = 218). There were significant differences between the groups with regard to type and frequency of treatment recommendations. A therapy was recommended in a high proportion of examinations in all groups at all ages. Conclusion Although there are differences between cleft entities, the treatment need of patients with orofacial clefts is generally high during the growth period. Patients with CL/A showed a similarly high treatment demand and should be monitored closely. A close follow-up for patients with diagnosis of CL/P is crucial and measures should be taken to increase participation in follow-up appointments.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Continuous Multidisciplinary Care for Patients With Orofacial Clefts—Should the Follow-up Interval Depend on the Cleft Entity?

Sander

Grau

Kloss‐Brandstätter

et al. 2021

The Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Evaluation of Multidisciplinary Team Clinic for Patients With Isolated Cleft Lip

Padovano

Snyder‐Warwick

Skolnick

et al. 2020

The Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To report the incidences of secondary lip and nose operations, otolaryngology procedures, speech-language therapy, neurodevelopmental concerns, and dental and orthodontic issues in children with isolated cleft lip to inform multidisciplinary cleft team protocols. Setting: An American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association–approved team at a tertiary academic children’s hospital. Design: Retrospective cohort study of patients evaluated through longitudinal clinic visits by a multidisciplinary cleft palate and craniofacial team between January 2000 and June 2018. Patients, Participants: Children with nonsyndromic cleft lip with or without cleft alveolus (n = 92). Results: Median age at final team visit was 4.9 years (interquartile range: 2.4-8.2 years). Secondary plastic surgery procedures were most common between ages 3 and 5 (135 per 1000 person-years), and the majority of these procedures were minor lip revisions. The rate of tympanostomy tube insertion was highest before age 3 (122 per 1000 person-years). By their final team visit, 88% of patients had normal hearing and 11% had only slight to mild conductive hearing loss. No patients had speech errors attributable to lip abnormalities. Psychological interventions, learning disabilities, and dental or orthodontic concerns were uncommon. Conclusions: Most patients with isolated cleft lip may not require long-term, longitudinal evaluation by cleft team specialists. Cleft teams should develop limited follow-up protocols for these children to improve resource allocation and promote value-based care in this patient population.

show abstract

Clinical Follow-Up in Orofacial Clefts—Why Multidisciplinary Care Is the Key

Lethaus

Grau

Kloss‐Brandstätter

et al. 2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(1) Background: Although most clinicians involved in the treatment of cleft patients agree upon the major importance of interdisciplinary cooperation and many protocols and concepts have been discussed in the literature, there is little evidence of the relevance of continuous interdisciplinary care. We aimed to objectify the type and number of therapeutic decisions resulting from an annual multidisciplinary follow-up. (2) Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the data of all 1126 patients followed up in the weekly consultation hours for cleft patients at university clinics in Leipzig for the years 2005–2020. We assessed the clinical data of every patient and specifically evaluated the treatment decisions taken at different points in time by the participating experts of different specialties. (3) Results: In total, 3470 consultations were included in the evaluation, and in 70% of those, a therapeutic recommendation was given. Each specialty showed certain time frames with intense treatment demand, which partially overlapped. Nearly all therapy recommendations were statistically attached to a certain age (p < 0.001). (4) Conclusions: There is an exceptionally high need for the interdisciplinary assessment of patients with cleft formation. Some developmental phases are of particular importance with regard to regular follow-up and initiation of different treatment protocols. The therapy and checkup of cleft patients should be concentrated in specialized centers.

show abstract

A Standardized Protocol for the Prospective Follow-Up of Cleft Lip and Palate Patients

Cited by 3 publications

References 41 publications

Continuous Multidisciplinary Care for Patients With Orofacial Clefts—Should the Follow-up Interval Depend on the Cleft Entity?

Continuous Multidisciplinary Care for Patients With Orofacial Clefts—Should the Follow-up Interval Depend on the Cleft Entity?

Evaluation of Multidisciplinary Team Clinic for Patients With Isolated Cleft Lip

Clinical Follow-Up in Orofacial Clefts—Why Multidisciplinary Care Is the Key

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About