This study aims to discuss diagnostic criteria and severity assessment for craniofacial microsomia (CFM). A series of 61 patients with diverse CFM phenotypes had their clinical data collected by experienced dysmorphologists using a single protocol.Genetic abnormalities were searched through karyotype and chromosomal microarray analysis. Sex ratio, prenatal risk factors, and recurrence rate corroborated the literature. Despite the wide variability of clinical findings, ear disruption was universal.Eight patients were assigned as syndromic, four of whom had demonstrable genetic alterations. The majority of patients (67.2%) fulfilled four known diagnostic criteria, while 9.8% fulfilled one of them. Data strengthened disruptions of the ear and deafness as a semiotically valuable sign in CFM. Facial impairment should consider asymmetry as a mild expression of microsomia. Spinal and cardiac anomalies, microcephaly, and developmental delay were prevalent among extra craniofacial features and should be screened before planning treatment and follow up. The severity index was able to recognize the less and the most affected patients. However, it was not useful to support therapeutic decisions and prognosis in the clinical scenario due to syndromic and non-syndromic phenotypes overlapping. These issues make contemporary the debate on diagnostic methods and disease severity assessment for CFM.They also impact care and etiopathogenetic studies.congenital microtia, craniofacial microsomia, oculoauriculovertebral spectrum, severity of illness index
| INTRODUCTIONCraniofacial microsomia (CFM), also known as the oculo-auriculovertebral spectrum, is a term employed to group phenotypes that affect predominantly facial bones, ears, eyes, and spine. It is usual to find it described as otomandibular dysostosis, lateral facial dysplasia, hemifacial microsomia, and Goldenhar, facioauriculovertebral and first and second branchial arch syndromes. [1][2][3][4] The prevalence of CFM is estimated by 3.8 per 100 000 births according to the largest population study on the subject. 5 It has been considered the second most common craniofacial defect, behind oral clefts. 1,3,4,6 Understanding the etiology and pathogenesis of CFM remains a challenge. Most cases are sporadic and probably result from genetic susceptibility acting along with non-genetic factors. Among familial cases, it is not always possible to