Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

The Slavcleft: a three-center study of the outcome of treatment of cleft lip and palate. Nasolabial appearance

A. Stebel, W. Urbanová, I. Klimova, A. Brudnicki, I. Dubovska, P. Polackova, D. Kroupová, M. Koťová, PS. Fudalej

. 2021 ; 9 (-) : e10631. [pub] 20210209

Language English Country United States

Document type Journal Article

Background: There is a multitude of protocols of treatment of cleft lip and palate (CLP) worldwide differing in number of operations, surgical techniques, and timings of surgeries. Despite, facial appearance in subjects with CLP is rarely ideal and residual stigmata are easy to notice in many patients irrespective of the protocol. The prospective controlled investigations are optimal for comparing effectiveness of treatment protocols. Because prospective studies are very challenging to perform in CLP field, it is reasonable to retrospectively assess different surgical protocols to identify the promising ones and then to test them in a prospective way. Methods: Our objective was to assess the nasolabial appearance in a preadolescent Slavic population with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) by using the 0-200 numeric scale with reference photographs. Patients treated in Warsaw, Poland (n = 32), Prague, Czech Republic (n = 26) and Bratislava, Slovakia (n = 17) were included in this retrospective study. Each cleft center used a unique surgical protocol. Two panels of professional raters (n = 7) and laypeople (n = 10) scored blindly the nasolabial esthetics on cropped frontal and profile images with cropped reference photograph present on the same slide. Intra- and inter-rater agreement was assessed with Cronbach's alpha, intraclass correlation coefficients, t-tests, and Bland-Altman plots. Inter-group differences were evaluated with one-way ANOVA and regression analysis. Results: The agreement within and between raters was acceptable. We found that patients treated in Warsaw, Prague, and Bratislava showed comparable nasolabial appearance on frontal and profile photographs when judged by both professional raters (p > 0.05) and laypeople (p > 0.05). Regression analysis did not identify influence of gender, group (i.e., Warsaw, Prague, and Bratislava), age at lip repair, surgeon, and age at photographic assessment on esthetic outcome (p > 0.05). Conclusion: This study showed that none of the surgical protocols showed superiority to produce good nasolabial appearance.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc21010502
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20210715125602.0
007      
ta
008      
210413s2021 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.7717/peerj.10631 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)33614265
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Stebel, Adam $u Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, F. D. Roosevelt University Hospital, Banska Bystrica, Slovak Republic ; Department of Stomatology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Comenius University in Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovak Republic
245    14
$a The Slavcleft: a three-center study of the outcome of treatment of cleft lip and palate. Nasolabial appearance / $c A. Stebel, W. Urbanová, I. Klimova, A. Brudnicki, I. Dubovska, P. Polackova, D. Kroupová, M. Koťová, PS. Fudalej
520    9_
$a Background: There is a multitude of protocols of treatment of cleft lip and palate (CLP) worldwide differing in number of operations, surgical techniques, and timings of surgeries. Despite, facial appearance in subjects with CLP is rarely ideal and residual stigmata are easy to notice in many patients irrespective of the protocol. The prospective controlled investigations are optimal for comparing effectiveness of treatment protocols. Because prospective studies are very challenging to perform in CLP field, it is reasonable to retrospectively assess different surgical protocols to identify the promising ones and then to test them in a prospective way. Methods: Our objective was to assess the nasolabial appearance in a preadolescent Slavic population with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) by using the 0-200 numeric scale with reference photographs. Patients treated in Warsaw, Poland (n = 32), Prague, Czech Republic (n = 26) and Bratislava, Slovakia (n = 17) were included in this retrospective study. Each cleft center used a unique surgical protocol. Two panels of professional raters (n = 7) and laypeople (n = 10) scored blindly the nasolabial esthetics on cropped frontal and profile images with cropped reference photograph present on the same slide. Intra- and inter-rater agreement was assessed with Cronbach's alpha, intraclass correlation coefficients, t-tests, and Bland-Altman plots. Inter-group differences were evaluated with one-way ANOVA and regression analysis. Results: The agreement within and between raters was acceptable. We found that patients treated in Warsaw, Prague, and Bratislava showed comparable nasolabial appearance on frontal and profile photographs when judged by both professional raters (p > 0.05) and laypeople (p > 0.05). Regression analysis did not identify influence of gender, group (i.e., Warsaw, Prague, and Bratislava), age at lip repair, surgeon, and age at photographic assessment on esthetic outcome (p > 0.05). Conclusion: This study showed that none of the surgical protocols showed superiority to produce good nasolabial appearance.
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Urbanová, Wanda $u Department of Orthodontics and Cleft Anomalies, Dental Clinic, 3rd Medical Faculty, Charles University, Faculty Hospital Royal Vineyard, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Klimova, Irena $u Clinic of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Comenius University in Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovak Republic
700    1_
$a Brudnicki, Andrzej $u Department of Pediatric Surgery, Institute of Mother and Child, Warsaw, Poland
700    1_
$a Dubovska, Ivana $u Institute of Dentistry and Oral Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacký University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Polackova, Petra $u Department of Orthodontics and Cleft Anomalies, Dental Clinic, 3rd Medical Faculty, Charles University, Faculty Hospital Royal Vineyard, Prague, Czech Republic ; Institute of Dentistry and Oral Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacký University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Kroupová, Daniela $u Clinic of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Comenius University in Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovak Republic
700    1_
$a Koťová, Magdalena $u Department of Orthodontics and Cleft Anomalies, Dental Clinic, 3rd Medical Faculty, Charles University, Faculty Hospital Royal Vineyard, Prague, Czech Republic ; Institute of Dentistry and Oral Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacký University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Fudalej, Piotr S $u Institute of Dentistry and Oral Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacký University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic ; Department of Orthodontics, Jagiellonian University Cracow, Krakow, Poland ; Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
773    0_
$w MED00184567 $t PeerJ $x 2167-8359 $g Roč. 9, č. - (2021), s. e10631
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33614265 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20210413 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20210715125602 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ind $b bmc $g 1649834 $s 1130878
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2021 $b 9 $c - $d e10631 $e 20210209 $i 2167-8359 $m PeerJ $n PeerJ $x MED00184567
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20210413

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...