| 1. |
- Breugem, Corstiaan, et al.
(författare)
-
Prioritizing Cleft/Craniofacial Surgical Care after the COVID-19 Pandemic
- 2020
-
Ingår i: PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY-GLOBAL OPEN. - 2169-7574. ; 8:9
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: It is anticipated that in due course the burden of emergency care due to COVID-19 infected patients will reduce sufficiently to permit elective surgical procedures to recommence. Prioritizing cleft/craniofacial surgery in the already overloaded medical system will then become an issue. The European Cleft Palate Craniofacial Association, together with the European Cleft and Craniofacial Initiative for Equality in Care, performed a brief survey to capture a current snapshot during a rapidly evolving pandemic. Methods: A questionnaire was sent to the 2242 participants who attended 1 of 3 recent international cleft/craniofacial meetings. Results: The respondents indicated that children with Robin sequence who were not responding to nonsurgical options should be treated as emergency cases. Over 70% of the respondents indicated that palate repair should be performed before the age of 15 months, an additional 22% stating the same be performed by 18 months. Placement of middle ear tubes, primary cleft lip surgery, alveolar bone grafting, and velopharyngeal insufficiency surgery also need prioritization. Children with craniofacial conditions such as craniosynostosis and increased intracranial pressure need immediate care, whilst children with craniosynostosis and associated obstructive sleep apnea syndrome or proptosis need surgical care within 3 months of the typical timing. Craniosynostosis without signs of increased intracranial pressure needs correction before the age of 18 months. Conclusions: This survey indicates several areas of cleft and craniofacial conditions that need prioritization, but also certain areas where intervention is less urgent. We acknowledge that there will be differences in the post COVID-19 response according to circumstances and policies in individual countries.
|
|
| 2. |
- Breugem, Corstiaan, et al.
(författare)
-
Prioritizing Cleft/Craniofacial Surgical Care after the COVID-19 Pandemic
- 2020
-
Ingår i: PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY-GLOBAL OPEN. - 2169-7574. ; 8:9
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: It is anticipated that in due course the burden of emergency care due to COVID-19 infected patients will reduce sufficiently to permit elective surgical procedures to recommence. Prioritizing cleft/craniofacial surgery in the already overloaded medical system will then become an issue. The European Cleft Palate Craniofacial Association, together with the European Cleft and Craniofacial Initiative for Equality in Care, performed a brief survey to capture a current snapshot during a rapidly evolving pandemic. Methods: A questionnaire was sent to the 2242 participants who attended 1 of 3 recent international cleft/craniofacial meetings. Results: The respondents indicated that children with Robin sequence who were not responding to nonsurgical options should be treated as emergency cases. Over 70% of the respondents indicated that palate repair should be performed before the age of 15 months, an additional 22% stating the same be performed by 18 months. Placement of middle ear tubes, primary cleft lipsurgery, alveolar bone grafting, and velopharyngeal insufficiency surgery also need prioritization. Children with craniofacial conditions such as craniosynostosis and increased intracranial pressure need immediate care, whilst children with craniosynostosis and associated obstructive sleep apnea syndrome or proptosis need surgical care within 3 months of the typical timing. Craniosynostosis without signs of increased intracranial pressure needs correction before the age of 18 months. Conclusions: This survey indicates several areas of cleft and craniofacial conditions that need prioritization, but also certain areas where intervention is less urgent. We acknowledge that there will be differences in the post COVID-19 response according to circumstances and policies in individual countries.
|
|
| 3. |
- Houkes, Ruben, et al.
(författare)
-
Classification systems of cleft lip, alveolus and palate : results of an international survey
- 2021
-
Ingår i: The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal. - 1055-6656 .- 1545-1569. ; , s. 1-8
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 4. |
- Houkes, Ruben, et al.
(författare)
-
Classification systems of cleft lip, alveolus and palate : results of an international survey
- 2021
-
Ingår i: The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal. - : SAGE Publications. - 1055-6656 .- 1545-1569. ; , s. 1-8
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 5. |
- Mossey, Peter A, et al.
(författare)
-
Core outcomes for orofacial clefts : reconciling traditional and ICHOM minimum datasets
- 2023
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Orthodontics. - : Oxford University Press. - 0141-5387 .- 1460-2210. ; 45:6, s. 671-679
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE/DESIGN/SETTING: This retrospective study sought voluntary participation from leading cleft centres from Europe and Brazil regarding core outcome measures. The results of this study would inform the debate on core outcome consensus pertaining to the European Reference Network for rare diseases (ERN CRANIO) and achieve a core outcome set for cleft care providers worldwide. INTERVENTION/METHOD: Five orofacial cleft (OFC) disciplines were identified, within which all of the International Consortium of Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) outcomes fall. One questionnaire was designed for each discipline and comprised 1. the relevant ICHOM's outcomes within that discipline, and 2. a series of questions targeted to clinicians. What core outcomes are currently measured and when, did these align with the ICHOM minimum, if not how did they differ, and would they recommend modified or additional outcomes?. RESULTS: For some disciplines participants agreed with the ICHOM minimums but urged for earlier and morefrequent intervention. Some clinicians felt that some of the ICHOM standards were compatible but that different ages were preferred and for others the ICHOM standards were acceptable but developmental stages should be preferred to absolute time points. CONCLUSION/IMPLICATIONS: Core outcomes for OFC were supported in principle but there are differences between the ICHOM recommendations and the 2002 WHO global consensus. The latter are established in many centres with historical archives of OFC outcome data, and it was concluded that with some modifications ICHOM could be moulded into useful core outcomes data for inter-centre comparisons worldwide.
|
|
| 6. |
- Sullivan, Nathaniel A.T., et al.
(författare)
-
Differences in analysis and treatment of upper airway obstruction in Robin sequence across different countries in Europe
- 2023
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Pediatrics. - : Springer Verlag. - 0340-6199 .- 1432-1076. ; 182:3, s. 1271-1280
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The goal of this study was to explore the availability of diagnostic and treatment options for managing upper airway obstruction (UAO) in infants with Robin Sequence (RS) in Europe. Countries were divided in lower- (LHECs, i.e., PPP per capita < $4000) and higher-health expenditure countries (HHECs, i.e., PPP per capita ≥ $4000). An online survey was sent to European healthcare professionals who treat RS. The survey was designed to determine the availability of diagnostic tools such as arterial blood gas analysis (ABG), pulse oximetry, CO2 analysis, polysomnography (PSG), and sleep questionnaires, as well as to identify the used treatment options in a specific center. Responses were received from professionals of 85 centers, originating from 31 different countries. It was equally challenging to provide care for infants with RS in both LHECs and HHECs (3.67/10 versus 2.65/10, p = 0.45). Furthermore, in the LHECs, there was less access to ABG (85% versus 98%, p = 0.03), CO2 analysis (45% versus 70%, p = 0.03), and PSG (54% versus 93%, p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in the accessibility concerning pulse oximetry, sleep questionnaires, home saturation monitoring, nasopharyngeal tubes, Tuebingen plates, and mandibular distraction. Conclusion: This study demonstrates a large difference in available care for infants with RS throughout Europe. LHECs have less access to diagnostic tools in RS when compared to HHECs. There is, however, no difference in the availability of treatment modalities between LHECs and HHECs.What is Known:• Patients with Robin sequence (RS) require complex and multidisciplinary care. They can present with moderate to severe upper airway obstruction (UAO). There exists a large variety in the use of diagnostics for both UAO treatmentindications and evaluations. In most cases, conservative management of UAO in RS is sufficient. Patients with UAO that persist despite conservative management ultimately need surgical intervention. To determine which intervention is best suitable for theindividual RS patient, the level of UAO needs to be determined through diagnostic testing.• There is a substantial variation among institutions across Europe for both diagnostics and treatment options in UAO. A standardized, internationally accepted protocol for the assessment and management of UAO in RS could guide healthcare professionals in the timing of assessment and indications to prevent escalation of UAO. Creating such a protocol might be a challenge, as there are large financial differences between countries in Europe (e.g., health expenditure per capita in purchasing power parity in international dollars ranges from $600 to over $8500).What is New:• There is a substantial variation in the availability of objective diagnostic tools between European countries. Arterial blood gas analysis, CO2 analysis and polysomnography are not equally accessible for lower-healthcare expenditure countries (LHECs) compared to higher-healthcare expenditure countries (HHECs). These differences are not only limited to availability; there is also a difference in quality of these diagnostic tools. Surprisingly, there is no difference in access to treatment tools between LHECs and HHECs.• There is national heterogeneity in access to tools for diagnosis and treatment of RS, which suggests centralization of health care, showing that specialized care is only available in tertiary centers. By centralization of care for RS infants, diagnostics and treatment can be optimized in the best possible way to create a uniform European protocol and ultimately equal care across Europe. Learning what is necessary for adequate monitoring could lead to better allocation of resources, which is especially important in a low-resource setting.
|
|
