Categorical variables are reported as frequencies and percentages to their corresponding groups, and continuous variables as “mean ± standard deviation (SD).” Univariate analysis was performed using 1-way analysis of variance or Student's t-test for continuous variables, and Chi-squared or Fisher's exact test (n < 10) for categorical variables. Statistical significance was reached with P ≤ 0.05. Multivariate regression models were used for outcomes significant on univariate analysis to control for potential confounders. Variables included in the regression model were age, height, weight, gender, American Society of Anesthesiology classification, race, surgical team specialty, wound classification, all comorbidities, and outcomes. Only significant associations identified on regression analysis are displayed in Table 5.
Review of the mentioned CPT codes and application of exclusion criteria identified 181 patients in the PCLP group, 1007 patients in the PCP group, and 783 patients in the PCL group eligible for analysis. Patients in the PCP group were significantly older (429.9 ± 175.7 vs 258.9 ± 204.0 days; P < 0.001), and weighed more (9.4 ± 2.1 vs 7.5 ± 2.1 kg; P < 0.001) at time of surgery than those in the PCLP group (Table 1). There were also significant differences in the distribution of race (P < 0.0001), and surgical team specialty (P < 0.001) between the 2 groups (Table 1). When comparing all 3 groups, there was a significant difference in age (P < 0.001), height (P < 0.001), weight (P < 0.001), gender (P < 0.001), race (P = 0.002), surgical team specialty (P < 0.001) distributions, and wound classification distribution (P = 0.01) (Table 1).
Univariate analysis showed no significant differences in the rates of postoperative complications between the PCLP and PCP surgery groups, or between the 3 groups: PCLP, PCP, and PCL. There were 14 (7.7%) complications in the PCLP group, 79 (7.8%) in the PCP group, and 40 (5.1%) in the PCL group (Table 2). Univariate analysis of secondary outcomes revealed that patients who underwent PCLP surgery had a significantly longer mean operative time than patients in the PCP group (159.1 ± 66.8 vs 142.1 ± 67.2 minutes; P = 0.004). Analysis of secondary outcomes between all 3 surgery groups (PCLP, PCP, and PCL) also revealed significant differences in mean operative time (159.1 ± 66.8 vs 142.1 ± 67.2 vs 125.1 ± 59.4 minutes; P < 0.001) and hospital stay (1.3 ± 0.9 vs 1.6 ± 1.0 vs 1.2 ± 2.0 days; P < 0.001) (Table 2).
When comparing patients with and without complications within the PCLP repair group, there were no significant differences in demographics or other preoperative clinical factors and medical comorbidities (Table 3). Patients with complications, however, experienced significantly longer mean operative time (241.2 ± 92.3 vs 152.4 ± 59.9 minutes; P = 0.01) (Table 4).
Multivariate regression showed that within the PCLP surgery group, patients with preoperative cardiac risk factors (β = 35.19; 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.88–75.21; P = 0.04) and postoperative complications (β = 77.31; 95% CI 35.82–118.79; P < 0.001) experienced significantly longer operative times (Table 5). The most common surgical complication after PCLP repair was superficial incisional SSI (n = 3) (Table 6).
In the US centers, the surgical repair of concomitant cleft lip and palate is most commonly performed in a staged fashion. According to the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association, the goal for these patients is to repair the cleft lip within the 1st year of life or as early as is considered safe for the infant, and close the palate by the age of 18 months or preferably earlier when possible.9 Since the initial report of the technique in 1958 by Farina,10 multiple groups have evaluated various outcomes following single-stage cleft lip and palate repair.1–7,11–25 All studies evaluating the safety of the single-stage approach consist of case series and suggest that it can be performed safely, with limited postoperative wound complications.2,4–7,18 Importantly, the need for blood transfusions was reported to be as high as one-third of patients by Honigmann.2 A large case series evaluating single-stage surgery safety in 106 patients from Uganda,18 described 2 patients requiring soft palate release for desaturation, 1 patient with lip wound dehiscence, and 7 patients with fistulae requiring surgical closure. An important limitation to previous studies evaluating safety is the limited number of patients, which prevents generalizability of results. In this study, we evaluated early postoperative outcomes in 181 patients undergoing single-stage PCLP surgery from the NSQIP-pediatric database.
The study analysis showed no significant differences in the rate of early postoperative complications between patients undergoing PCLP, PCP, or PCL repair, which supports the overall safety reported by previous studies regarding the single-stage approach.2,4–7,18 Patients undergoing single-stage repair had a significantly longer mean operative time than patients who had PCL or PCP repair alone, which is also consistent with the literature.7 The rate of 30-day complications as defined in the study following single-stage surgery was 7.7%, which falls within the lower value of the previously reported range of 5%4 to 33%.2,18 Complications in the cohort identified in the database consisted primarily of wound complications, including SSI or dehiscence, and 2 patients required reoperation within 30 days. Interestingly, no patients undergoing PCLP repair in the study required postoperative blood transfusions, as compared to rates as high as one-third of patients in previously published studies.2,18 The cohort evaluated in this study had a mean age of almost 9 months, as compared to 6 months in previous reports.2 Younger patient age as well as performing the procedure in an outreach setting18 may have possibly prompted a lower transfusion threshold to ensure patient hemodynamic stability in these studies, which could account for the higher rate of postoperative transfusions.
Within the PCLP repair group, there were no differences in preoperative demographics, clinical factors, and comorbidities between patients who developed postoperative complications and those who did not. Patients with complications had a significantly longer mean operative time. After adjusting for potential confounders, we found that postoperative complications and preoperative cardiac risk factors were significant independent risk factors for longer operative duration. The association between complications and operative time is not surprising, as prolonged operative time may reflect increased procedural complexity and therefore an increased risk for postoperative adverse outcomes. Short et al showed a significant association between operative time and postoperative complications across 33 procedure types within pediatric surgery, including cleft lip and palate repairs.26 The frequency of preoperative cardiac risk factors in this cohort (10.5%) was comparable to the 10% rate reported in the literature.27 The intraoperative management of patients with orofacial clefts is more challenging in patients with associated congenital abnormalities,28 especially when they are cardiac in nature,27 as congenital heart disease increases the likelihood of a prolonged transitional circulation between fetal and adult circulation.29 This predisposes these patients to intraoperative hypoxemic events,29 underscoring the need for pediatric cardiac anesthesiology expertise when managing patients with cleft lip and/or palate affected by congenital heart disease.30 These factors, combined with the known special considerations in airway management of patients affected by cleft lip and/or palate,28 may explain why the presence of preoperative cardiac risk factors was an independent risk factor for prolonged operative time in patients undergoing PCLP repair in this study.
Major concerns of early single-stage cleft surgery are maxillary and palatal growth restriction from palatal scarring. We are unfortunately unable to evaluate the effects of single-stage cleft repair on craniofacial morphology through this cohort due to the nature of the NSQIP-pediatric database. The majority of studies available in the literature showed no difference in craniofacial morphology between the single-stage and staged approaches,3,11,12,14,17,24 although unsurprisingly, maxillary retrusion, shortening, and posterior rotation were observed when patients undergoing single-stage repair were compared to children with no history of cleft.11,16,17 Nasolabial morphology was found to be satisfactory in patients undergoing single-stage repair,23,25 while the effects on dental arch relationships were mixed.13,15 The psychosocial effect of single-stage repair on patients and families appears to be positive,1,21 which is probably attributable to limiting the number of patient procedures and exposure to anesthesia. Luyten et al1 report a parental satisfaction rate with patient facial features as high as 100%. Importantly, only 54% of patients were found to have completely normal speech following single-stage repair in a study by Hortis-Dzierzbicka et al.19 Luyten et al1 report a 56% rate of parental satisfaction with patient speech outcomes, while other studies describe more encouraging outcomes.5,6,20,21
The mean ages of patients in this study are noteworthy: almost 6 months for the PCL group, 14 months for the PCP group, and 9 months for the single-stage group. These represent slightly older ages than typically performed at major cleft centers, which commonly perform cleft lip repair around 3 months of age, and palate repair by 1 year. We are unable to determine which patients underwent cleft lip repair with a multidisciplinary team, but it is possible that the relatively older age of primary repair encountered in this study may be due to patients undergoing cleft surgery in a community setting where protocol-driven care may be less prevalent. On the contrary, community surgeons providing cleft services might be tempted to perform single-stage repair in patients who are at risk of loss to follow-up.
Significant loss to follow-up in developing countries, reported to be as high as 40%,18 has been described as a major driver for performing early single-stage cleft repair by Hodges18 and Guneren et al,7 even in patients as young as 3 months.18 In a series of 106 patients undergoing simultaneous cleft lip and palate surgery in Uganda, Hodges report a fistula rate of 6.5% and that almost a third of patients (28%) required blood transfusions.18 However, the authors of the same study describe that the majority of fistulae were located in the anterior palate, and the rates of other wound complications were negligible. Similarly, Guneren et al describe negligible wound and overall complication rates in a series of 25 patients undergoing combined cleft lip and palate repair in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.7 Furthermore, Luyten et al1 evaluated parental satisfaction in a series of 44 patients who underwent simultaneous cleft lip and palate surgery in Uganda, and report a 100% satisfaction rate with patient facial appearance, 98% with hearing, 93% with lip appearance, 86% with nasal appearance, and 56% with speech and appearance of the teeth. Given all of these findings and a mortality rate as high as 75% reported in children who do not undergo palatal repair in developing countries,18 it seems reasonable to suggest that in the outreach setting and developing countries, the benefits of cost-saving and early patient supplementation with adequate nutrition associated with early combined cleft lip and palate repair, could potentially outweigh the risks of the procedure and loss to follow-up.1,7,18
The NSQIP-pediatric database and this study have several limitations. The database does not include detailed hospital definitions of type of palatal defect, surgical technique, wound descriptions, functional outcomes, and outcomes beyond 30 postoperative days. The limited history of previous surgeries prevents us from determining which patients within the palate repair only group had previously undergone cleft lip repair. Furthermore, perinatal history as well as history of genetic diagnoses is not included in the database. Another limitation is the inability to determine the exact temporal relationship of postoperative outcomes, such as time to wound complication. Although we demonstrate that single-stage PCLP repair is not associated with an increased risk of early complications as compared to PCL or palate repair alone, the structure of the NSQIP-pediatric database limits our ability to identify variables such as Veau classification, description of lip deformity, and lip or palate repair technique. Furthermore despite our results suggesting that PCLP repair can be safely combined, we cannot strongly comment on the aesthetic outcomes of cleft lip repair, the functional outcomes of palatoplasty, the incidence of fistula formation or the effects on facial growth. In addition, while the results of the analysis in this study are encouraging, they do not allow us to provide recommendations for best practice given the retrospective nature and limitations of the database, and future long-term prospective studies are needed to better delineate a true causal relationship between combined cleft lip and palate repair and postoperative outcomes. These issues are areas of interest and future study. Despite these limitations, this study represents the largest reported cohort of patients undergoing single-stage PCLP repair and offers valuable insight into 30-day postoperative outcomes and risk factors for complications in patients who develop them.
While the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association guidelines recommend that a staged approach should be adopted in patients presenting with concomitant cleft lip and palate, it is extremely important that cleft teams evaluate patients on a case-by-case basis and tailor treatment accordingly. In developing settings where patients face significant travel difficulties and are often lost to follow-up, the single-stage approach may be preferred. Furthermore, review of the literature through this study showed that there is no evidence to suggest that there are significant differences in craniofacial morphology between patients with concomitant cleft lip and palate undergoing the single-stage or staged approach. Through this study, we sought to evaluate the practice of simultaneous cleft lip and palate repair in the United States using a national validated database and evaluate associated postoperative complications.
While the trend in the United States is to use a staged approach for combined cleft lip and palate defects, analysis of a national validated database did not identify an increased risk of early postoperative complications in patients undergoing single-stage PCLP repair as compared to primary lip or palate repair alone. While outcomes from previous studies are encouraging, rigorous long-term analyses of craniofacial morphology, fistulae rate, speech, and dental outcomes are essential to fully understand the effects of combined cleft lip and palate repair. Surgeon clinical judgment and evaluation of patient clinical condition as well as social support, and follow-up reliability are critical when selecting patients for single-stage PCLP surgery.
1. Luyten A, D’Haeseleer E, Budolfsen D, et al. Parental satisfaction in Ugandan children with cleft lip and palate following synchronous lip and palatal repair. J Commun Disord
2. Honigmann K. One-stage closure of uni- and bilateral cleft lip and palate. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg
3. Savaci N, Hosnuter M, Tosun Z, et al. Maxillofacial morphology in children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate treated by one-stage simultaneous repair. Plast Reconstr Surg
4. Davies D. The one-stage repair of unilateral cleft lip and palate: a preliminary report. Plast Reconstr Surg
5. Brudnicki A, Piwowar W, Cudzilo D, et al. Complete unilateral cleft lip and palate operated on by means of the one-stage method - own experience. Dev Period Med
6. Schwarz RJ. Combined repair of lip and palate with pharyngoplasty for late presenting clefts. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg
7. Guneren E, Canter HI, Yildiz K, et al. One-stage cleft lip and palate repair in an older population. J Craniofac Surg
8. The American College of Surgeons. American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) Pediatric 2015.
9. The American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association. Parameters for evaluation and treatment of patients with cleft lip/palate or other craniofacial anomalies. 2009.
10. Farina R. Total unilateral harelip: correction of severe deformity of the palate & lips in a single operation; Le Mesurier's cheiloplasty & Veau-Ernst's gnatho-urano-staphyloplasty [in French]. Ann Chir Plast
11. Corbo M, Dujardin T, de Maertelaer V, et al. Dentocraniofacial morphology of 21 patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate: a cephalometric study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J
12. De Mey A, Franck D, Cuylits N, et al. Early one-stage repair of complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. J Craniofac Surg
2009; 20 (Suppl 2):1723–1728.
13. Fudalej P, Hortis-Dzierzbicka M, Obloj B, et al. Treatment outcome after one-stage repair in children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate assessed with the Goslon Yardstick. Cleft Palate Craniofac J
14. Fudalej P, Katsaros C, Bongaarts C, et al. Nasolabial esthetics in children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate after 1- versus 3-stage treatment protocols. J Oral Maxillofac Surg
15. Fudalej P, Katsaros C, Bongaarts C, et al. Dental arch relationship in children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate following one-stage and three-stage surgical protocols. Clin Oral Investig
16. Fudalej P, Obloj B, Miller-Drabikowska D, et al. Midfacial growth in a consecutive series of preadolescent children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate following a one-stage simultaneous repair. Cleft Palate Craniofac J
17. Fudalej P, Surowiec Z, Offert B, et al. Craniofacial morphology in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate patients consecutively treated with 1-stage repair of the cleft. J Craniofac Surg
18. Hodges AM. Combined early cleft lip and palate repair in children under 10 months - a series of 106 patients. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg
19. Hortis-Dzierzbicka M, Radkowska E, Fudalej PS. Speech outcomes in 10-year-old children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate after one-stage lip and palate repair in the first year of life. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg
20. Kaplan I, Dresner J, Gorodischer C, et al. The simultaneous repair of cleft lip and palate in early infancy. Br J Plast Surg
21. Kaplan I, Taube E, Ben-Bassat M, et al. Further experience in the early simultaneous repair of cleft lip and palate. Br J Plast Surg
22. Kulewicz M, Dudkiewicz Z. Craniofacial morphological outcome following treatment with three different surgical protocols for complete unilateral cleft lip and palate: a premilinary study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg
23. Laberge LC. Unilateral cleft lip and palate: Simultaneous early repair of the nose, anterior palate and lip. Can J Plast Surg
24. Mueller AA, Zschokke I, Brand S, et al. One-stage cleft repair outcome at age 6- to 18-years - a comparison to the Eurocleft study data. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg
25. Urbanova W, Brudnicki A, Strydom H, et al. Nasolabial aesthetics correlates poorly with skeletal symmetry in unilateral cleft lip and palate. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg
26. Short HL, Fevrier HB, Meisel JA, et al. Defining the association between operative time and outcomes in children's surgery. J Pediatr Surg
27. Harry BL, TeBockhorst S, Deleyiannis FW. The impact of congenital cardiovascular malformations on the assessment and surgical management of infants with cleft lip and/or palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J
28. Hardcastle T. Anaesthesia for repair of cleft lip and palate. J Perioper Pract
29. White MC. Approach to managing children with heart disease for noncardiac surgery. Paediatr Anaesth
30. Foy J. Anesthesia for cleft lip and cleft palate patients. Facial Plast Surg
Keywords:© 2019 by Mutaz B. Habal, MD.
Combined cleft repair; patient safety; primary cleft lip and palate repair; single-stage cleft surgery; surgical outcomes