Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2021 Mar-Apr;32(2):647-651.
doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000007029.

A Meta-Analysis of Palatal Repair Timing

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

A Meta-Analysis of Palatal Repair Timing

Jordan R Wlodarczyk et al. J Craniofac Surg. 2021 Mar-Apr.

Abstract

Developing midface hypoplasia is common after palatoplasty and has been hypothesized to be influenced by the timing of hard palate repair. This meta-analysis assesses the risk of developing midface hypoplasia based on age at hard palate repair. A Pubmed PRISMA systematic review and meta-analysis was completed for literature focused on palatoplasty and midface hypoplasia published between 1970 and 2019. Cephalometric data were extracted and categorized by age at hard palate repair: <6, 7 to 12, 13 to 18, 19 to 24, and 25 to 83 months. Analysis of these groups and a control were compared using independent T-tests and Spearman correlation coefficients. SNA angles for each group were 77.9 ± 3.1° (<6 months), 77.7 ± 4.2° (7-12 months), 78.7 ± 4.2° (13-18 months), 75.1 ± 4.2° (19-24 months), 75.5 ± 4.8° (25-83 months), and were statistically different than the control group 82.4 ± 3.5° (P < 0.0001). Hard palate repair at 13 to 18 months had a statistically significant greater SNA angle than all other groups except for the repair at <6 months group (P = 0.074). As age at hard palate closure increased beyond 18 months, the SNA decreased, corresponding to a more hypoplastic maxilla (Spearman's correlation coefficient -0.381, P = 0.015). Analysis suggests that younger age at the time of repair is less likely to create in midface hypoplasia in adulthood. Minimizing midface hypoplasia in cleft palate patients by optimizing algorithms of care is a practical way to decrease the burden of disease on patients, families and medical systems. Further studies are needed to evaluate the role of technique on outcomes.Level of Evidence: IV.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Prevalence of Cleft Lip & Cleft Palate | Data & Statistics | National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research. https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/research/data-statistics/craniofacial-birth-de... Accessed March 22, 2020
    1. Tanaka SA, Mahabir RC, Jupiter DC, et al. Updating the epidemiology of cleft lip with or without cleft palate. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012;129:511e–518e.
    1. Roy AA, Rtshiladze MA, Stevens K, et al. Orthognathic surgery for patients with cleft lip and palate. Clin Plast Surg 2019; 46:157–171.
    1. Corbo M, Dujardin T, De Maertelaer V, et al. Dentocraniofacial morphology of 21 patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate: a cephalometric study. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J 2005; 42:618–624.
    1. David DJ, Smith I, Nugent M, et al. From birth to maturity: a group of patients who have completed their protocol management. Part III. Bilateral cleft lip-cleft palate. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128:475–484.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources