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
. 2023 Feb;60(2):189-196.
doi: 10.1177/10556656211057368. Epub 2021 Nov 23.

Classification Systems of Cleft Lip, Alveolus and Palate: Results of an International Survey

Ruben Houkes  1 , Johannes Smit  1 , Peter Mossey  2 , Peter Don Griot  1 , Martin Persson  3 , Amanda Neville  4 , Edwin Ongkosuwito  5 , Tom Sitzman  6 , Corstiaan Breugem  1
Affiliations

Classification Systems of Cleft Lip, Alveolus and Palate: Results of an International Survey

Ruben Houkes et al. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2023 Feb.

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.

Keywords: Classification system; cleft lip; cleft palate; orofacial cleft; survey.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Distribution of professions among respondents. † Note that the sum of the number of professions is greater than 197 and subsequently exceeds 100%. The reason for this is that quite often respondents answered the survey on behalf of their entire cleft care team and filled in multiple professions.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Timing of classifying clefts among respondents.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Preferred classification systems among respondents. It was possible for the participants to choose multiple systems. Abbreviations: ACPA; American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association; ICD-10: International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Allori AC, Cragan JD, Cassell CH, Marcus JR. ICD-10-based expanded code set for use in cleft lip/palate research and surveillance. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2016;106(11):905-914. - PubMed
    1. Allori AC, Mulliken JB, Meara JG, Shusterman S, Marcus JR. Classification of cleft Lip/palate: then and Now. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017;54(2):175-188. - PubMed
    1. Calzolari E, Pierini A, Astolfi G, Bianchi F, Neville AJ, Rivieri F. Associated anomalies in multi-malformed infants with cleft lip and palate: an epidemiologic study of nearly 6 million births in 23 EUROCAT registries. Am J Med Genet A. 2007;143A(6):528-537. - PubMed
    1. CRANE: The Cleft Registry and Audit NEtwork. Available at: https://www.crane-database.org.uk/. Accessed July 5, 2021.
    1. Dixon MJ, Marazita ML, Beaty TH, Murray JC. Cleft lip and palate: understanding genetic and environmental influences. Nat Rev Genet. 2011;12(3):167-178. - PMC - PubMed