Comparison of two surgical protocols for the treatment of unilateral cleft lip and palate: a multidisciplinary systematic review and meta-analysis

Other authors

Institut Català de la Salut

[van Roey VL, Ombashi S] Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. [Pleumeekers MM, Mathijssen IMJ] Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Dutch Craniofacial Centre, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. [Mink van der Molen AB] Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, UMC Utrecht, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. [Munill M] Servei de Cirurgia Oral i Maxil·lofacial, Vall d’Hebron Hospital Universitari, Barcelona, Spain

Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus

Publication date

2024-09-27T11:49:01Z

2024-09-27T11:49:01Z

2024-10



Abstract

Cleft lip; Oral surgical procedures; Treatment outcome


Llavi leporino; Procediments quirúrgics orals; Resultat del tractament


Labio leporino; Procedimientos quirúrgicos orales; Resultado del tratamiento


There is still no unanimous agreement on the optimal surgical protocol(s) for the treatment of unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP), and a huge variety of protocols are employed by cleft centres across the world. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare reported patient outcomes of the Oslo protocol (and modifications) (OP) and delayed hard palate closure protocols (DHPCP) from a multidisciplinary perspective. A systematic search of multiple databases was conducted until September 2023. Studies reporting any patient outcomes of these protocols were included. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for evidence synthesis, including comparisons of results between the types of protocol. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the ROBINS-I tool. In total, 62 articles (42 studies) reporting patients with UCLP were reviewed, involving 1281 patients following the OP and 655 following DHPCP. Equally poor long-term sagittal maxillofacial growth was found, and similar results for velopharyngeal insufficiency and nasolabial appearance. In contrast, OP was associated with a lower rate of oronasal fistulas. Disregarding the scarcity of comparable evidence for some domains, the results of this review, overall, favour OP over DHPCP. However, caution should be taken when interpreting the results on velopharyngeal insufficiency and oronasal fistulas, since the possibility of confounding and other biases remains.


Partially funded by ERN CRANIO (European Reference Network for Rare and/or Complex Craniofacial Anomalies and Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) Disorders) in terms of personnel costs for two researchers (V. van Roey, S. Ombashi). ERN CRANIO is funded by the European Union.

Document Type

Article


Published version

Language

English

Publisher

Elsevier

Related items

International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery;53(10)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2024.04.003

Recommended citation

This citation was generated automatically.

Rights

Attribution 4.0 International

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This item appears in the following Collection(s)