Secondary Logo

Overview of the level of cleft care received by a group of Egyptian patients: challenges and ways to improve

El-Kassaby, Marwa A.W.

Egyptian Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery: October 2012 - Volume 3 - Issue 2 - p 53–61
doi: 10.1097/01.OMX.0000418704.36507.8a
Review article
Free

Background and objective Interdisciplinary care is considered the ‘gold standard’ for the management of patients with a cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P). The lack of such a model of care would result in several problems and compromised treatment outcomes.

Purpose To overview the current level of cleft care among a sample of Egyptian patients in comparison with international standards of care, especially that proposed by the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association, discuss participating factors in order to determine the challenges, and suggest ways to improve the level of cleft care in Egypt.

Design This is a retrospective study of the data extracted from the files of the first 100 patients with different forms of CL/P attending the Cleft Care Clinic (CCC). Additional data that were not available in the files were personally collected through interview of parents by a CCC coordinator. All collected data were tabulated in the Excel sheet and analyzed statistically to assess the current level of cleft care as related to each treatment step.

Setting CCC, which is a newly established interdisciplinary cleft clinic affiliated to a teaching dental facility.

Participants One hundred patients with different forms of CL/P managed previously in several areas all over the country who are currently attending CCC. The age of the patients ranged from 3 months to 27 years (mean 8.2 years).

Results Several treatment steps were missed, resulting in multiple problems that required the participation of more than one specialist working in an interdisciplinary setting for resolution. In our sample, alveolar cleft grafting had received the least attention.

Conclusion Challenges are discussed and ways to improve are suggested. The results of this study support the need for coordinated interdisciplinary care clinics for patients with CL/P in Egypt.

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain-Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

A part of this study was presented as a poster at the 66thConference of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association, 22–25 April 2009, Scottsdale, AZ, USA.

Correspondence to Marwa A.W. El-Kassaby, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain-Shams University, AbbaseyaSquare, 11516 Cairo, Egypt Tel: +20 187 832 832; fax: +20 224 870 309; e-mail: marwaelkassaby@gmail.com

Received April 2, 2012

Accepted May 30, 2012

Back to Top | Article Outline

Introduction

Coordinated team care has become the standard of care for patients with CL/P since the 1980s 1–3. The main aim of this approach is to deliver optimal care to achieve the best treatment outcomes. This is achieved by a systematic approach to the problem, maintaining records, team homogeneity, and an effective doctor–patient relationship. Team regionalization, quality assurance, and outcomes research are considered as essential for long-term improvement of the care received by patients with CL/P 4–8.

For the majority of regions in the United States and Europe, a multidisciplinary approach has been well acknowledged by cleft subspecialty practitioners to play a key role in optimizing all aspects of care for children with CL/P 9–18.

The American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association (ACPA) set its recommendations for the care of children with CL/P and other craniofacial anomalies in 1993 with the latest revised edition released in November 2007 19. The fundamental aspect of these recommendations was that the management of patients should be conducted through multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary care models by specialists with certain clinical expertise in CL/P. This approach implies that the team should be responsible for providing the most comprehensive medical services or for making necessary coordinated age-specific referrals. Current trends of care have no place for individual providers or low-volume surgeons 19.

In 1997, Kotby et al.20 reported on the problems with appropriate cleft care in developing countries in relation to sociocultural and socioeconomic aspects. Since then, adequate data on the magnitude of the CL/P problem or the current level of cleft care in Egypt have not been retrieved from relevant reports 21,22. It is frequently observed that many children with CL/P in Egypt still receive care that is markedly inferior to what should be provided, especially those living in rural areas as in other countries. Although many public and teaching hospitals are available, centers that offers comprehensive care to patients with CL/P in a team setting are very limited and do not serve the entire Egyptian population. It is also observed that the treatment offered is mainly surgical repair of the lip and palate (not standardized), with lack of multidisciplinary care.

The Cleft Care Clinic (CCC) is a weekly interdisciplinary clinic that was founded through personal efforts in March 2008 for the care of patients with CL/P. The clinic is affiliated to the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain-Shams University (Cairo, Egypt). The initiation of this clinic is considered a direct result of the realization of the defects in cleft services as observed by patients seeking cleft care at our department. CCC provides an opportunity to observe the overall needs of a population of cleft patients of all ages attending the clinic. As it is affiliated to a teaching facility, the CCC serves a variety of patients with CL/P from different regions all over the country ranging from ‘middle to low’ in terms of educational and socioeconomic status.

The CCC is a joint clinic run by staff members from the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department as well as dental specialties including Orthodontists, Pediatric and General Dentists as well as Prosthodontists. The clinic offers comprehensive long-term treatment following international guidelines for primary as well as secondary cleft-associated problems. Age-specific referrals are performed to relevant medical specialties as required that is Pediatric, Genetic, Audiologic, and Phonetic assessments and interventions. Whenever required, mutual cooperation between CCC, ENT, Plastic, and Pediatric CleftSurgeons’ is offered. This collaborative effort aims to increases the overall success in the management of both primary and secondary cleft deformities.

In order to suggest ways to improve cleft care in Egypt, the first step is to outline the challenges facing appropriate interdisciplinary care for patients with CL/P in Egypt. This cannot be achieved without shedding light on the current level of cleft care offered to patients with CL/P in public and teaching hospitals. Hence, the aim of this study was to overview the level of cleft care in each treatment/care step received by a sample of Egyptian patients before attending our newly founded interdisciplinary CCC with reference to known international standards 19.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Methods

This is a retrospective study of the data extracted from the CCC files of the first 100 patients attending CCC with different forms of CL/P; additional data that were not available in the files were collected through personal interviews of parents by the clinic coordinator. All parents provided a witnessed verbal consent after the aim of the study had been fully explained to them. All data were entered in an Excel sheet that was formulated on the basis of the ACPA parameters 19 (Table 1). Data were coded and held confidentially; only the primary investigator had access to it.

Table 1

Table 1

Back to Top | Article Outline

Statistical analysis

Qualitative data were presented as frequencies and percentages. Qualitative data included sex (male, female), type of cleft [isolated cleft lip (CL) and primary palate, unilateral/bilateral complete CL and palate (CLP), isolated cleft palate (CP), other facial clefts], presence of congenital anomalies (yes/no), postnatal explanation (yes/no), feeding advice (yes/no), pediatric assessment (yes/no), genetic counseling (yes/no), nasoalveolar molding devices (yes/no), audiologic and speech assessments (yes/no) as well as dental, orthodontic care, and alveolar cleft grafting (ACG) (yes/no, if yes when).

Dental care was assessed in two age groups (older than and younger than 2 years of age, which is about the age of eruption of full deciduous dentition and there is a need for pediatric dental follow-up visits) as suggested in the ACPA parameters 19; orthodontic care was assessed in two age groups (older than and younger than 7 years of age, which is around the age of eruption of the first permanent incisors and molars and the beginning of orthodontic assessment visits) as suggested in the ACPA parameters 19. ACG was assessed in two age groups (older than and younger than 9 years of age, which is about the age of secondary ACG preparation or surgery) as suggested in the ACPA parameters 19.

Quantitative data such as age, timing of primary CL, and palate repairs were presented as minimum, maximum, means, medians, and SD values. The significance level was set at P≤0.05. Statistical analysis was carried out using the Statistical Package for Scientific Studies for Windows (SPSS 16.0 Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Results

Demographic data

Males represented 63% and females represented 37% of the patients. The male to female ratio was 1.7 : 1. The age ranged from 3 months to 27 years, with a mean age of 8.2±6.8 years.

Thirty-three patients (33%) were older than 9 years of age (age of ACG), whereas 19 patients (19%) were younger than 2 years of age. Fifty percent of the sample ranged in age from 4 to 13 years.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Types of cleft

Bilateral as well as unilateral complete CLP was present in 34% of patients. Isolated CL and primary palate as well as isolated CP were present in 14% of patients. Other types of facial clefts were present in only 4% of patients.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Data retrieval

The majority of data (90%) obtained (either from CCC files or through interviews of the parents) depended on the parents’ statements on the basis of recall/memorization of their children’s surgical/medical history. Only 10% of parents retained some documentation that was neither standardized nor complete for their children’s previous surgical/medical history. None of the patients had log books, operation reports, or medical files/records. It was also clear that all parents were free to choose where their child was treated. Parents did not stick to one place, surgeon, or physician during different treatment phases. The surgeons’ speciality could not be determined as the parents were unaware of its importance (several specialities were operating for CL/P such as General, Plastic, Pediatric, ENT as well as Oral and Maxillofacial surgeons).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Postnatal care and primary repairs

Sixty parents (60%) received an initial undetailed explanation of the CL/P deformity including rough timelines of primary surgical repairs (which were not standardized) and were mostly provided on demand. Seventy parents (70%) received simple instructions related to feeding following the birth of their cleft-affected child. Sixty-nine patients (69%) had undergone a pediatric assessment after birth. Eighteen patients (18%) had undergone a genetic assessment, of whom 14 patients (14%) had multiple congenital anomalies associated with CL/P. None of the patients with complete or wide clefts had received nasoalveolar molding devices before the primary surgical repairs. The timings of primary lip and palate repair are shown in Table 2.

Table 2

Table 2

Back to Top | Article Outline

Hearing and speech assessment

Excluding patients with isolated CL (14%), 86 patients had complete CLP (68%); isolated CP was present in 14% of patients, and 4% of the patients had facial clefts affecting the palate. These patients (n=86) required audiologic as well as speech assessment. Fifty-five percent of these patients (n=47) had undergone an audiologic assessment and 49% (n=42) had undergone speech assessment at different stages of development.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Dental and orthodontic care

Fifty-three percent of patients (n=53) had received pediatric or general dental treatment on symptomatic rather than prophylactic bases (Table 3). Forty-one percent of patients (n=41) received orthodontic care (Table 4).

Table 3

Table 3

Table 4

Table 4

Back to Top | Article Outline

Alveolar cleft grafting

Excluding 14 patients who had an isolated CP and one patient who had a facial cleft that did not require ACG, 85% of patients (n=85) required ACG, of whom 33 patients (38.8%) were older than 9 years of age, in whom grafting was considered due (Fig. 1), whereas 52 patients (61.2%) were younger than 9 years of age and therefore grafting was considered not due (Table 5).

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Table 5

Table 5

The level of care in terms of each treatment or care step is summarized in Table 6.

Table 6

Table 6

Back to Top | Article Outline

Discussion

As multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary care for patients with CL/P has become an indispensable option for optimizing the quality of their life 1,7,19, it is our responsibility to ensure that all patients in Egypt especially those with complete clefts are treated under this model of care. The results of our current study highlight the fact that patients with CL/P in Egypt treated in public or teaching hospitals require more comprehensive and regular care. Establishment of interdisciplinary cleft care centers in all Egyptian Universities is strongly recommended for optimizing the treatment outcomes from infancy through adolescence.

In the current study, the coincidental even distribution of bilateral complete and unilateral complete CLP, as well as isolated CL and isolated CP, was indicative of the fact that the type of care received is not cleft-type related. The age range of patients included was widely distributed, allowing an overview of the current level of care offered across more than three age groups. The mean age was 8.2 years; almost one-third of the sample was older than 9 years of age, which is around the age of secondary ACG. In addition, 50% of the sample was between 4 and 13 years of age, which allows a clear view of the practice adopted at this critical age in preparation for grafting.

As for any chronic disease or medical problems requiring long-term rehabilitation, documentation is considered the key for a successful follow-up. The ACPA parameters state that ‘every team has the responsibility to maintain centralized and comprehensive records on each patient, including histories, diagnoses, reports of evaluations, treatment plans, reports of treatment, and supporting documentation such as photographs, radiographs, dental models, and audiotaped speech recordings’ 19.

However, in the current study, retrieving data from parents or care givers was the most difficult task. This was attributed to the absence of official documentation provided to the parents by the surgeons performing the primary procedures or other interventions. This finding was almost common in all cases, except for individual cases (10%), where the parents showed personal interest in collecting some data and relevant documents. This indicates the need for the use of log books designed especially for this purpose as well as centralized data registry for patients with different craniofacial anomalies and birth defects including CL/P.

When parents face the birth of a baby with CL/P, they usually experience considerable anxiety and require adequate explanation and information on the prognosis, outcome, and treatment options 19. In the current study, as stated earlier, only 60% of the parents had received some kind of an initial undetailed explanation of the CL/P. The explanation was mainly for the surgical repair of the timing of CL/P rather than complete comprehensive care. None of the parents were provided educational/informational material about CL/P explaining the management required for this medical problem. The same applied to the feeding instructions provided to parents following the birth of their cleft-affected child. Feeding instructions provided to 70% of the parents were mainly in the context of babies with CL/P are unable to breast feed and require special bottles rather than exact positioning during feeding and what types of bottles are required and where to buy them. It is also noteworthy that there was no proper system for the registration and referral of these babies to certain hospitals, even though the cleft team members are expected to offer advice to such parents, providing them with basic information about the immediate newborn period, especially with respect to feeding, air way control as well as detailed explanation of the future interventions required 23–25. These findings could be attributed to the lack of adequate training offered to primary healthcare professionals in terms of CL/P as well as the lack of national guidelines/updates for the management of patients with CL/P.

It is known that CL/P may be associated with other congenital defects 26,27. Hence, the ACPA parameters stated that ‘pediatric care provided within the context of the team is fundamental in assuring that the health needs of the child with craniofacial anomalies are fully identified and appropriately treated and that a primary care physician should be identified for each child’ 19. In the current study, only 69% of the sample included had undergone a pediatric assessment following birth, which means that 31% were not assessed and that other congenital defects could not be determined; pediatric care was only sought when these children were sick. This problem might be attributed to several factors: the fact that they were either born at home or in a local clinic in areas where access to full medical care was not available, in addition to the absence of prenatal diagnosis as well as lack of awareness and guidance in terms of the cleft as a medical problem and how it should be managed. Furthermore, there is a lack of multidisciplinary care centers where those patients should be referred immediately after birth.

It is known that more than 300 syndromes and trisomies could be associated with CL/P 13,28–31. Therefore, the standards of care require that all cleft-affected children should undergo a comprehensive clinical genetic evaluation, which is considered as a key component in the management of patients with congenital craniofacial anomalies. This assessment includes diagnosis, recurrence risk counseling, and counseling on the prognosis. On the basis of the fact that complex syndromes involving craniofacial anomalies may not fully express clinical manifestations that can be recognized in the first year of life, genetic screening and follow-up evaluations will be necessary for some patients until puberty. Moreover, it is necessary for those patients who are first seen at later ages to also be evaluated. In contrast, in the current study, only 18% received genetic assessment, among whom 14% had multiple congenital anomalies. However, 82% did not receive any form of genetic assessment including three families with more than one child with cleft.

With respect to the ACPA parameters, it has been noted that ‘surgical techniques should be individualized according to the needs and condition of the patient. Surgical procedures should be coordinated to minimize the number of aesthetic exposures and hospitalizations. Evaluation of complications of CL/P repairs should be subjected to peer review. The major factor in the quality of surgical outcome is the skill, training, and experience of the cleft care team’ 19. Unfortunately, this recommendation has not been followed; in the current study, most of the affected patients were dealt with by individual low-volume surgeons of different specialities including plastic, pediatric, general, and ENT surgeons. Parents were not systematically directed to experienced surgeons but rather upon availability in nearby local hospitals or upon the advice of others (family, work associates, friends, or neighbors). Parents were not fully aware of the implication of the surgeons’ speciality, training, and expertise required for optimal CL/P repair. Moreover, there are no national guidelines for the management of CL/P and hence patients did not receive systematic care by following specific timelines. It is also noteworthy that parents did not necessarily seek the same surgeon for the management of complications or for the second repair.

In terms of the surgical repair of a CL, the current consensus is 10–12 weeks of age, where the ‘rule of tens’ is a commonly adopted guideline 19,32–34. In the current study, the mean timing of primary lip repair was 5.5 months and the median was 4 months. This is considered slightly higher than that of the ‘rule of tens,’ but could still be within the acceptable range. However, the quality of the repair varied widely from excellent repairs to obviously distorted repairs that would require staged revisions to achieve acceptable outcomes, but this was still not assessed qualitatively as it was not within the scope of this study.

The timing of primary repair of the secondary palate is one of the most controversial issues related to the overall management of CP, as there are two major conflicts: speech and maxillary growth 35,36. Therefore, it is feasible to perform the palatal surgery sufficiently early. Moreover, staging palatal repair in wider clefts with only the soft palate at 12 months of age and postponement of hard palate closure until 3 or 5 years of age or even later appeared to be a reasonable strategy 37,38.

In the current study, the mean age for primary CP repair was 16.7 months and the median was 12 months; these values are in accordance with international and ACPA guidelines, but still no data could be obtained related to the staging of palatal repair as this was not clarified by surgeons to the majority of parents before or after the operations. In contrast, Kotby et al.20 have reported that the mean age for CP repair among their sample was 2.5 years because of the late presentation of some cases.

In the majority of cases included in this study, CL as well as CP were mainly perceived by parents as ‘a defect that should be closed’ rather than a defect that should be managed by certain surgical operations adopted to minimize postsurgical morbidities and problems related to speech and maxillary growth. Although interesting, the quality of repair, the number of procedures carried out as well as postoperative problems were not recorded as this was not within the scope of this particular study.

It is well known that children with either complete CL/P or isolated CP are at a risk of middle ear infection, especially otitis media with effusion, which predisposes to conductive hearing loss. Therefore, the assessment of the type and degree of any hearing loss and its effects on speech perception is essential. Hence, all patients undergoing CP repair should undergo audiological assessment early in their life and a follow-up in order to avoid such complications 19,39,40.

Moreover, after CP repair, all patients should be referred for speech evaluation around 2–3 years of age and speech therapy whenever required to stimulate speech development and to prevent undesirable compensatory articulations. It is recommended that early and aggressive management for speech and language disorders should be carried out in order to achieve intelligible speech and language usage by the time the child reaches the school-age years 41.

However, in the current study, only 55% underwent audiological assessment, which was mainly on symptomatic rather than routine bases. Moreover, only 49% had undergone speech assessment, partly on the advice of the treating surgeon and partly self-referred by the parents themselves either upon observing their children or driven by complaints concerning their child's hearing at school. This can be attributed to a lack of awareness and understanding of the problems associated with clefts involving the secondary palate as well as the lack of long-term follow-up. Those findings are in agreement with those of Kotby et al.20, who reported that families sought treatment only ‘when an important milestone was eminent.’ This was clear as the average age of patients included in their study was 28 years; they also reported a dropout rate of 70% at various stages of treatment in cases with velopharyngeal insufficiency.

To maintain good oral health, prevention and control of caries are essential for all cleft children, as it has been proposed that clefts are associated with other dental anomalies resulting from disturbed development of the dentition 42,43. At regular intervals, a pediatric or a general dentist should provide topical fluoride prophylaxis, dietary advice, and restorative care. The importance of dental assessment and treatment cannot be overlooked with children with CL/P as it is known in the ACPA parameters that patients with craniofacial anomalies will require dental services as a direct result of the medical condition, and the dental treatment is an integral part of the rehabilitative process. Provision of dental services for these patients includes not only primary care but also routine maintenance throughout life 19,44,45.

However, almost half of the patients included in the current study (53%) received dental care only for symptomatic treatment. These findings indicate the extent to which oral hygiene is neglected at the cost of CL/P repairs. None of the patients were directed toward prophylactic dental regimens specially tailored for the needs of CL/P as there is no known center that offers this service for cleft patients all over the country. This mandates the need for urgent attention from pediatric dentists toward raising awareness among dentists toward the special needs of those patients, including what should and what should not be done to avoid further complications. This finding seems to be in agreement with Dabed and Cauvi’s 46 survey of dentists’ experience with cleft children in Chile, where they reported that a majority of dentists included in their survey were not routinely exposed to the management of children with clefts and had treated a low number (1–3) of children over a period of several years using a combination of preventive-curative and radical treatments. Their results suggested the need for more information and clinical experience with children with CL/P in the dental school curricula.

The role of the orthodontist in the cleft team has become more established over the past 60 years. Currently, orthodontists are considered the main pillars in any team dealing with CL/P as the malocclusions associated with clefts are often linked to speech articulation defects, involve restraints in terms of dental hygiene, and problems with mastication, compromising the esthetics, and are related to growth defects 47–51.

The ACPA parameters stated that necessary assessments should be carried out to evaluate and monitor dental and facial growth and development. As for patients at risk of developing malocclusion or maxillary–mandibular discrepancy, diagnostic records should be collected at appropriate intervals. Regular timely check-up appointments are essential during all three stages of dentition to determine whether a malocclusion is present or developing. Orthodontic management of malocclusion must be performed and this each stage of therapy may be followed by orthodontic retention and regular observation 19.

However, only 41% of the patients included in the current study received orthodontic care as part of the management of the CL/P deformity even though all patients older than 7 years of age required an orthodontic intervention to variable degrees. This fact is attributed to the limited awareness, understanding and inadequate financial support, and most importantly, limited number of orthodontists. These restraining factors should be resolved so that any attempt to establish an integrated cleft care can be successful. It is also noteworthy that none of the patients included had received any form of nasoalveolar molding or presurgical orthopedics before lip repair. In addition, speech devices such as a palatal lift or a pharyngeal bulb prosthesis were not used for any of the patients with CP; only palatal plates for obliteration of large oronasal fistulae were used in a few cases.

ACG is a mandatory surgical procedure and continues to be an essential part of different treatment protocols for patients with clefts involving the primary palate as it provides several benefits 48,52–54.

As a general consensus, the best timing for ACG in the secondary grafting is from 9 to 12 years before the eruption of the canines 53,55–57. Moreover, the ACPA parameters also require that in late-presenting patients, bone grafting may necessarily take place after the full eruption of the permanent teeth. The timing of the operative procedure should be determined in collaboration with the orthodontist 19.

In the current study, a disappointing and alarming finding, to us as the surgeons responsible for ACG, was that approximately 82% of patients older than 9 years of age who are due for ACG did not receive any grafting attempts and parents/patients mainly had other complaints, and were not even aware of the need or the importance of this procedure. In the remaining 18%, only 12% had undergone successful grafting associated with presurgical and postsurgical orthodontic work. Meanwhile, 6% had failed grafting because of the lack of orthodontic preparation and follow-up after surgery. These alarming findings could be attributed to the lack of adequate referral systems and the lack of awareness of the other medical specialities of the importance of grafting.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Challenges

In addition to the lack of an adequate number of multidisciplinary care centers and, according to what has been reported by Cassell et al.2, other challenging factors can impede timely cleft surgery as well as nonsurgical interventions and therefore contribute toward the outcomes of the current study. These factors include financial, nonfinancial, and personal barriers. Earlier, Kotby et al.20, referred to those factors as sociocultural and socioeconomic aspects. Even though our study did not examine these barriers separately, it worth pointing them out because of their expected impact on the results.

The overall optimal management of CL/P involves high costs. Therefore, financial barriers among families of children with CL/P are clear, especially for uninsured families who belong to the middle and low income levels. As reported by Kotby et al.20, in developing countries, major problems exist in terms of ‘macro-allocation for Medicare where infectious and life threatening disease are considered more vital in health care financial concerns.’ As for nonfinancial barriers, healthcare policies, service organizations, referral systems to identify and refer children with CL/P to specialized services, and providers are not yet standardized for new borns with CL/P; the same findings have been reported in several studies 20,58–63.

The situation in Egypt is not different from that reported in earlier studies discussing the personal barriers behind the lack of adequate care 20,58–60,62–64. These barriers include confusion because of what different doctors say about the problem owing to the absence of national guidelines that individual providers should follow, in addition to the inability to find the way through the healthcare system effectively, transportation, timing of appointments, missed work and school days, location of services, and a general distrust of healthcare professionals, particularly among low-income populations can disrupt the continuity of care for patients with CL/P and results in an increase in the dropout rate at various stages of rehabilitation, especially after the CL/P are primarily repaired.

Furthermore, grown-up patients with complete CL/P can still present with more than one problem related to their cleft, a finding that is consistent with the observations of other studies 9,20,65–67. In our study, each patient presented with several clinical problems related to a lack of awareness that these problems can or need to be addressed and a lack of adequate guidance because of the absence of long-term follow-up. Furthermore, a list of secondary problems that should be staged will certainly prolong the treatment time, and adds to the overall cost of rehabilitation and increases the financial burdens on the parents, society, and healthcare systems.

In summary, the findings of our study were as follows: (a) There is a lack of documentation, and retrieving accurate data from parents was a difficult task; (b) CL and CP repairs were the main focus of both parents and healthcare professionals; (c) There is a lack of awareness of the magnitude of otological and phonetic problems in children with CP; (d) Orthodontic treatment is not always performed even though urgently required because of the high cost as well as the limited number of orthodontists; (e) Nasoalveolar molding is not a common practice for patients with CL/P; (f) No prophylactic dental programs have been especially tailored for patients with CL/P; and (g) There is a lack of awareness and understanding of the need and importance for ACG among healthcare professionals as well as parents.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Ways to improve

To improve the quality of care delivered to the cleft population in Egypt, these challenges need to be addressed through collaborative efforts between different systems offering care for patients with CL/P, mainly those related to the Ministry of Health, Health Insurance, and Ministry of Higher Education and Research. Suggested ways to improve the level of cleft care can be summarized as follows:

  • Establishing a national registry for birth defects including CL/P.
  • Establishing national guidelines for cleft care in Egypt.
  • Establishing multidisciplinary cleft centers in all Egyptian Universities.
  • Organization of a cohort referral system to those centers.
  • Improving awareness among healthcare professionals about the exact needs of patients with CL/P is necessary in the nursing, medical. and dental school curricula.
  • Conducting comprehensive training and continuing educational programs for medical and dental specialties in direct relationship with CL/P patients.
  • The need for informational and educational material/booklets and log books that should be provided to parents immediately after the birth of babies with CL/P to enhance parental awareness as well as keep track of treatment progress.
  • Exerting every effort to make interdisciplinary cleft care financially feasible and informing the families about the different possibilities of financial support.
  • Improving public awareness about the needs of CL/P.
Back to Top | Article Outline

Conclusion

Despite the limitations encountered, to our knowledge, this study was the first to examine the care provided for a group of Egyptian patients with CL/P as compared with the international guidelines with special reference to the ACPA recommendations. These data can be considered an important nidus for service and program planning as well as development of care offered to patients with CL/P in Egypt.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to Prof. Dr Abdelfattah A. Sadakah, Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Tanta University, for his valuable contribution and to Amr Amin Ghanem, Assistant Lecturer Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain-Shams University, for his help in collecting and organizing the data. Many thanks are due to all families who participated in this study.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Back to Top | Article Outline

References

1. Austin AA, Druschel CM, Tyler MC, Romitti PA, West II, Damiano PC, et al. Interdisciplinary craniofacial teams compared with individual providers: is orofacial cleft care more comprehensive and do parents perceive better outcomes? Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2010;47:1–8
2. Cassell CH, Daniels J, Meyer RE. Timeliness of primary cleft lip/palate surgery. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2009;46:588–597
3. Lam FSV, Bendeus M, Wong RWK. A multidisciplinary team approach on cleft lip and palate management. Hong Kong Dental J. 2007;4:38–45
4. Kapp-Simon KA. Psychological issues in cleft lip and palate. Clin Plast Surg. 2004;31:347–352
5. Kaufman FL. Managing the cleft lip and palate patient. Pediatr Clin North Am. 1991;38:1127–1147
6. Mitchell JC, Wood RJ. Management of cleft lip and palate in primary care. J Pediatr Health Care. 2000;14:13–19
7. Strauss RP. The organization and delivery of craniofacial health services: the state of the art. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1999;36:189–195
8. Thomas PC. Multidisciplinary care of the child born with cleft lip and palate. ORL Head Neck Nurs. 2000;18:6–16
9. Chuo CB, Searle Y, Jeremy A, Richard BM, Sharp I, Slator R. The continuing multidisciplinary needs of adult patients with cleft lip and/or palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008;45:633–638
10. Clark JD. Managed clinical networks: what are they and how do they work? Dental Update. 2007;34:443–444 447–448, 450
11. Cleft lip and/or palate – report of a CSAG Committee. 1998 London Department of Health Publications
12. Felemovicius J, Ortiz-Monasterio F. Management of the impaired adult cleft patient: the last chance. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2004;41:550–558
13. Habel A, Sell D, Mars M. Management of cleft lip and palate. Arch Dis Child. 1996;74:360–366
14. Desai SN, Wolfram Schweckendiek M, Hotz MM. The nature and timing of surgery in cleft lip and palate patients. Report of a meeting held in London on 25 February 1985. Br J Plast Surg. 1986;39:274–277
15. Posnick JC. The treatment of secondary and residual dentofacial deformities in the cleft patient: surgical and orthodontic therapy. Clin Plast Surg. 1997;24:583–597
16. Semb G, Brattström V, Mølsted K, Prahl-Andersen B, Shaw WC. The Eurocleft study: intercenter study of treatment outcome in patients with complete cleft lip and palate. Part 1: introduction and treatment experience. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42:64–68
17. Precious DS. The Eurocleft project 1996–2000: overview. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg. 2001;29:141–142
18. Wolford LM, Epker BN. Sequencing and timing of treatment in the correction of dentofacial deformities in adult patients with clefts. J Am Dental Assoc. 1978;96:835–840
19. . Parameters for evaluation and treatment of patients with cleft lip/palate or other craniofacial anomalies. American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J. 1993;30(Suppl):S1–S16
20. Kotby N, Abdel Haleem EK, Hegazi M, Safe I, Zaki M. Aspects of assessment and management of velopharyngeal dysfunction in developing countries. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 1997;49:139–146
21. Butali A, Mossey P. Epidemiology of orofacial clefts in Africa: methodological challenges in ascertainment. Pan Afr Med J. 2009;2:1–11
22. Global registry and database on craniofacial anomalies. Available at: http://www.who.int/genomics/anomalies/en/CFA-RegistryMeeting-2001.pdf [Accessed 10 February 2010]
23. Amstalden-Mendes LG, Magna LA, Gil-da-Silva-Lopes VL. Neonatal care of infants with cleft lip and/or palate: feeding orientation and evolution of weight gain in a nonspecialized Brazilian hospital. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2007;44:329–334
24. Endriga MC, Kapp-Simon KA. Psychological issues in craniofacial care: state of the art. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1999;36:3–11
25. Young JL, O’Riordan M, Goldstein JA, Robin NH. What information do parents of newborns with cleft lip, palate, or both want to know? Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2001;38:55–58
26. Rittler M, López-Camelo JS, Castilla EE, Bermejo E, Cocchi G, Correa A, et al. Preferential associations between oral clefts and other major congenital anomalies. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008;45:525–532
27. Wyse RKH, Mars M, Al-Mahdawi S, Russel-Eggitt Blake IMKD. Congenital heart anomalies in patients with clefts of the lip and/or palate. Cleft Palate J. 1990;27:258–264
28. Gorlin RJ, Cohen MM, Hennekam RC Syndromes of the head and neck. 2001 USA Oxford University Press
29. Jones MC. Etiology of facial clefts: prospective evaluation of 428 patients. Cleft Palate J. 1988;25:16–20
30. Rollnick BR, Pruzansky S. Genetic services at a center for craniofacial anomalies. Cleft Palate J. 1981;18:304–313
31. Shprintzen RJ, Siegel-Sadewitz VL, Amato J, Goldberg RB. Anomalies associated with cleft lip, cleft palate, or both. Am J Med Genet. 1985;20:585–595
32. Mulliken JB. Repair of bilateral complete cleft lip and nasal deformity – state of the art. Cleft Palate Craniof J. 2000;37:342–347
33. Posnick JC, Ruiz RLWyszynski DF. Staging of cleft lip and palate reconstruction: infancy through adolescence. Cleft lip and palate: from origin to treatment. 2002 New York Oxford University Press:319–353
34. Schendel SA. Unilateral cleft lip repair – state of the art. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2000;37:335–341
35. LaRossa D. The state of the art in cleft palate surgery. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2000;37:225–228
36. Riski JEWyszynski DF. Evaluation and management of speech, language, and articulation disorders. Cleft lip and palate: from origin to treatment. 2002 New York Oxford University Press:354–370
37. Bardach JBardach J, Morris HL. Cleft palate repair: two-flap palatoplasty. Multidisciplinary management of cleft lip and palate. 2002 Philadelphia WB Saunders:352–366
38. Nollet PJPM, Katsaros C, Van’t Hof MA, Semb G, Shaw WC, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Treatment outcome after two-stage palatal closure in unilateral cleft lip and palate: a comparison with Eurocleft. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42:512–516
39. Nunn DR, Derkay CS, Darrow DH, Magee W, Strasnick B. The effect of very early cleft palate closure on the need for ventilation tubes in the first years of life. Laryngoscope. 1995;105(9 I):905–908
40. Tunçbilek G, Özgür F, Belgin E. Audiologic and tympanometric findings in children with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2003;40:304–309
41. Kuehn DP, Moller KT. The state of the art: speech and language issues in the cleft palate population. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2000;37:348-1–35
42. Menezes R, Vieira AR. Dental anomalies as part of the cleft spectrum. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008;45:414–419
43. Stahl F, Grabowski R, Wigger K. Epidemiology of Hoffmeister’s ‘genetically determined predisposition to disturbed development of the dentition’ in patients with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43:457–465
44. Prahl-Andersen B. Dental treatment of predental and infant patients with clefts and craniofacial anomalies. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2000;37:528–532
45. Reisberg DJ. Dental and prosthodontic care for patients with cleft or craniofacial conditions. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2000;37:534–537
46. Dabed CC, Cauvi DL. Survey of dentists’ experience with cleft palate children in Chile. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1998;35:430–435
47. Cooper HK, Harding RL, Krogman WM, Mazaheri M, Millard RT Cleft palate and cleft lip: a team approach to clinical management and rehabilitation of the patient. 1979 Philadelphia WB Saunders:358–429
48. Long RE Jr, Semb G, Shaw WC. Orthodontic treatment of the patient with complete clefts of lip, alveolus, and palate: lessons of the past 60 years. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2000;37:533-1–13
49. Ross RB. The management of dental arch deformity in cleft lip and palate. Clin Plast Surg. 1975;2:325–342
50. Subtelny JDBardach J, Morris HL. Orthodontic principles in treatment of cleft lip and palate. Multidisciplinary management of cleft lip and palate. 1990 Philadelphia WB Saunders:615–636
51. Vargervik KBardach J, Morris HL. Orthodontic treatment of cleft patients: characteristics of growth and development/treatment principles. Multidisciplinary management of cleft lip and palate. 1990 Philadelphia WB Saunders:642–649
52. Bergland O, Semb G, Aabyholm FE. Elimination of the residual alveolar cleft by secondary bone grafting and subsequent orthodontic treatment. Cleft Palate J. 1986;23:175–205
53. Eppley BL, Sadove AM. Management of alveolar cleft bone grafting – state of the art. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2000;37:229–233
54. Jia YL, Fu MK, Ma L. Long-term outcome of secondary alveolar bone grafting in patients with various types of cleft. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006;44:308–312
55. Goudy S, Lott D, Burton R, Wheeler J, Canady J. Secondary alveolar bone grafting: outcomes, revisions, and new applications. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2009;46:610–612
56. Steinberg B, Padwa BL, Boyne P, Kaban L. State of the art in oral and maxillofacial surgery: treatment of maxillary hypoplasia and anterior palatal and alveolar clefts. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1999;36:283–291
57. Trindade IK, Mazzottini R, Da Silva Filho OG, Kiemle Trindade IE, Zindel Deboni MC. Long-term radiographic assessment of secondary alveolar bone grafting outcomes in patients with alveolar clefts. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2005;100:271–272
58. Betz CL, Baer MT, Poulsen M, Vahanvaty U, Bare M, Haddad Y, Nwachuken G. Secondary analysis of primary and preventive services accessed and perceived service barriers by children with developmental disabilities and their families. Issues Compr Pediatr Nurs. 2004;27:83–106
59. Margolis PA, Lannon CM, Stevens R, Harlan C, Bordley WC, Carey T, et al. Linking clinical and public health approaches to improve access to health care for socially disadvantaged mothers and children: a feasibility study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1996;150:815–821
60. Mikhail BI. Perceived impediments to prenatal care among low-income women. West J Nurs Res. 1999;21:335–355
61. Newacheck PW, Hughes DC, Stoddard JJ. Children’s access to primary care: differences by race, income, and insurance status. Pediatrics. 1996;97:26–32
62. Newacheck PW, McManus M, Fox HB, Hung Y-Y, Halfon N. Access to health care for children with special health care needs. Pediatrics. 2000;105(4 I):760–766
63. St Clair PA, Smeriglio VL, Alexander CS, Connell FA, Niebyl JR. Situational and financial barriers to prenatal care in a sample of low-income, inner-city women. Public Health Rep. 1990;105:264–267
64. Haley J, Kenney G. Low-income uninsured children with special health care needs: why aren’t they enrolled in public health insurance programs? Pediatrics. 2007;119:60–68
65. Bardach J, Morris H, Olin W. Late results of multidisciplinary management of unilateral cleft lip and palate. Ann Plast Surg. 1984;12:235–242
66. Bardach J, Morris HL, Olin WH, Gray SD, Jones DL, Kelly KM, et al. Results of multidisciplinary management of bilateral cleft lip and palate at the Iowa Cleft Palate Center. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1992;89:419–435
67. Cohen SR, Corrigan M, Wilmot J, Trotman CA. Cumulative operative procedures in patients aged 14 years and older with unilateral or bilateral cleft lip and palate. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995;96:267–271
© 2012 Egyptian Associations of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery