| 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. |
- Mc Goldrick, Niall, et al.
(författare)
-
A multi-program analysis of cleft lip with cleft palate prevalence and mortality using data from 22 International Clearinghouse for Birth Defects Surveillance and Research programs, 1974–2014
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Birth Defects Research. - 2472-1727. ; 115:10, s. 980-997
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Cleft lip with cleft palate (CLP) is a congenital condition that affects both the oral cavity and the lips. This study estimated the prevalence and mortality of CLP using surveillance data collected from birth defect registries around the world. Methods: Data from 22 population- and hospital-based surveillance programs affiliated with the International Clearinghouse for Birth Defects Surveillance and Research (ICBDSR) in 18 countries on live births (LB), stillbirths (SB), and elective terminations of pregnancy for fetal anomaly (ETOPFA) for CLP from 1974 to 2014 were analyzed. Prevalence and survival (survival for LB only) estimates were calculated for total and subclassifications of CLP and by pregnancy outcome. Results: The pooled prevalence of total CLP cases was 6.4 CLP per 10,000 births. The prevalence of CLP and all of the pregnancy outcomes varied across programs. Higher ETOPFA rates were recorded in most European programs compared to programs in other continents. In programs reporting low ETOPFA rates or where there was no ascertainment of ETOPFA, the rate of CLP among LB and SB was higher compared to those where ETOPFA rates were ascertained. Overall survival for total CLP was 91%. For isolated CLP, the survival was 97.7%. CLP associated with multiple congenital anomalies had an overall survival of 77.1%, and for CLP associated with genetic/chromosomal syndromes, overall survival was 40.9%. Conclusions: Total CLP prevalence reported in this study is lower than estimates from prior studies, with variation by pregnancy outcomes between programs. Survival was lower when CLP was associated with other congenital anomalies or syndromes compared to isolated CLP.
|
|
| 6. |
- 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.
|
|
