{"title":"An Exploratory Analysis of Early Care Differences and Risk of Post-Maxillary Advancement VPI in Individuals With Cleft Palate.","authors":"Sara Kinter, Hitesh Kapadia, Srinivas Susarla","doi":"10.1177/10556656241304215","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectiveTo investigate whether differences in early cleft care increase risk of velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) after maxillary advancement.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingLarge pediatric tertiary care hospital.Patients/ParticipantsAdolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cleft palate (∓cleft lip) who underwent maxillary advancement between 2008 and 2019.Interventions/ComparisonsInitial palate repair at a different institution (early care elsewhere, ECE) versus care at a single institution (consistent care, CC).Main Outcome MeasuresPost-maxillary advancement VPI.ResultsOne-hundred seventy-eight AYAs underwent maxillary advancement, 74 in the ECE group and 104 in the CC group. The ECE group was more likely to be internationally adopted (34% versus 4%), to have a history of VPI surgery (54% versus 32%) and to be older at time of palate repair (mean 25 versus 16 months). Of anatomical measures, only velar length differed, with the ECE group tending to have a shorter velum (mean 26 mm versus 28 mm). Proportional odds regression revealed increased odds of post-operative VPI in the ECE group (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.75-2.85) relative to the CC group. This relationship was stronger among those with bilateral cleft lip and palate (OR 3.29, 95% CI 0.86-13.52). For patients with history of prior VPI surgery, the odds of post-operative VPI in the ECE group was more than 3 times that in the CC group (OR 3.06, 95% CI 1.08-9.16).ConclusionsVPI after maxillary advancement is more likely among individuals who received early cleft care elsewhere compared to those who underwent all cleft operations at a single center.</p>","PeriodicalId":49220,"journal":{"name":"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal","volume":" ","pages":"223-233"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656241304215","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ObjectiveTo investigate whether differences in early cleft care increase risk of velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) after maxillary advancement.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingLarge pediatric tertiary care hospital.Patients/ParticipantsAdolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cleft palate (∓cleft lip) who underwent maxillary advancement between 2008 and 2019.Interventions/ComparisonsInitial palate repair at a different institution (early care elsewhere, ECE) versus care at a single institution (consistent care, CC).Main Outcome MeasuresPost-maxillary advancement VPI.ResultsOne-hundred seventy-eight AYAs underwent maxillary advancement, 74 in the ECE group and 104 in the CC group. The ECE group was more likely to be internationally adopted (34% versus 4%), to have a history of VPI surgery (54% versus 32%) and to be older at time of palate repair (mean 25 versus 16 months). Of anatomical measures, only velar length differed, with the ECE group tending to have a shorter velum (mean 26 mm versus 28 mm). Proportional odds regression revealed increased odds of post-operative VPI in the ECE group (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.75-2.85) relative to the CC group. This relationship was stronger among those with bilateral cleft lip and palate (OR 3.29, 95% CI 0.86-13.52). For patients with history of prior VPI surgery, the odds of post-operative VPI in the ECE group was more than 3 times that in the CC group (OR 3.06, 95% CI 1.08-9.16).ConclusionsVPI after maxillary advancement is more likely among individuals who received early cleft care elsewhere compared to those who underwent all cleft operations at a single center.
目的:探讨腭裂早期护理差异是否会增加上颌前进后腭咽功能不全(VPI)的发生风险。设计:回顾性队列研究。环境:大型儿科三级保健医院。患者/参与者:在2008年至2019年间接受上颌推进手术的腭裂(唇裂)青少年和年轻人(AYAs)。干预/比较:在不同机构(其他地方的早期护理,ECE)的初始腭修复与在单一机构的护理(持续护理,CC)。主要观察指标:上颌后推进VPI。结果:178例AYAs行上颌前进,ECE组74例,CC组104例。ECE组更有可能被国际收养(34%对4%),有VPI手术史(54%对32%),在腭裂修复时年龄更大(平均25个月对16个月)。在解剖测量中,只有掌长不同,ECE组倾向于有更短的掌(平均26毫米对28毫米)。比例优势回归显示,相对于CC组,ECE组术后VPI的几率增加(OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.75-2.85)。这种关系在双侧唇腭裂患者中更为明显(OR 3.29, 95% CI 0.86-13.52)。对于既往有VPI手术史的患者,ECE组术后VPI的发生率是CC组的3倍以上(OR 3.06, 95% CI 1.08-9.16)。结论:与在单一中心接受所有唇裂手术的患者相比,在其他地方接受早期唇裂护理的患者更有可能在上颌前移后发生VPI。
期刊介绍:
The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal (CPCJ) is the premiere peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, international journal dedicated to current research on etiology, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in all areas pertaining to craniofacial anomalies. CPCJ reports on basic science and clinical research aimed at better elucidating the pathogenesis, pathology, and optimal methods of treatment of cleft and craniofacial anomalies. The journal strives to foster communication and cooperation among professionals from all specialties.