The objective was to assess differences in psychosocial adjustment between adolescents with and without craniofacial microsomia (CFM).
Design:
This is a case-control follow-up study in adolescents with and without CFM.
Setting:
Participants were originally recruited as infants from 26 cities across the United States and Canada.
Participants:
Participants included 142 adolescents with CFM (cases) and 316 peers without CFM (controls), their caregivers, and their teachers.
Main Outcome Measures:
Social and behavior measures from the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessments (ASEBA), the PedsQL: Core Version, and the Children’s Communication Checklist–2nd edition (CCC-2) were used. Linear regression was used to estimate case-control differences and corresponding standardized effect sizes (ES) and 95% confidence intervals after adjustment for sociodemographic confounds. We also examined case-control differences by facial phenotype and hearing status.
Results:
The magnitude and direction of case-control differences varied across assessment and respondent, but were generally modest (ES = –0.4 to 0.02, P values ranged from .003 to .85). There was little evidence for variation in case-control differences across different facial phenotypes or as a function of hearing status.
Conclusions:
Our results suggest that in spite of multiple risk factors, adolescents with CFM exhibit behavior problems no more frequently than their peers without CFM. Future studies of individuals with CFM should focus on resilience and social coping mechanisms, in addition to maladjustment.
AchenbachTMRescorlaLA. Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms and Profiles. Burlington: University of Vermont Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families; 2001.
BeauneLForrestCRKeithT. Adolescents’ perspectives on living and growing up with Treacher Collins syndrome: a qualitative study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2004;41:343–350.
4.
BirgfeldCBHeikeCLSaltzmanBSLerouxBGEvansKNLuquettiDV. Reliable classification of facial phenotypic variation in craniofacial microsomia: A comparison of physical exam and photographs. Head Face Med. 2016;12:14.
5.
BirgfeldCBLuquettiDVGougoutasAJBartlettSPLowDWSieKCEvansKNHeikeCL. A phenotypic assessment tool for craniofacial microsomia. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:313–320.
6.
BishopDV. Development of the Children’s Communication Checklist (CCC): a method for assessing qualitative aspects of communicative impairment in children. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1998;39:879–891.
7.
BishopDV. Children’s Communication Checklist: Second Edition. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation; 2003.
8.
BishopDVNorburyCF. Exploring the borderlands of autistic disorder and specific language impairment: a study using standardized diagnostic instruments. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2002;43:917–929.
9.
BroderHLWilson-GendersonMSischoL. Examination of a theoretical model for oral health-related quality of life among youths with cleft. Am J Public Health. 2014;104:865–871.
10.
ClineJMHicksKEPatelKG. Characterization of facial paresis in hemifacial microsomia. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;150:188–193.
11.
CohenJ. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988:400.
12.
CohenNCohenEGaieroAZeccaSFicheraGBaldiFGiordanettoJFMercierJMCohenA. Maxillofacial features and systemic malformations in expanded spectrum Hemifacial Microsomia. Am J Med Genet A. 2017;173:1208–1218.
13.
CollettBRSpeltzMLCloonanYKLerouxBGKellyJPWerlerMM. Neurodevelopmental outcomes in children with hemifacial microsomia. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2011;165:134–140.
14.
CrerandCSSarwerDBKazakAEClarkeARumseyN. Body image and quality of life in adolescents with craniofacial conditions. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017;54:2–12.
15.
DuftonLMSpeltzMLKellyJPLerouxBCollettBRWerlerMM. Psychosocial outcomes in children with hemifacial microsomia. J Pediatr Psychol. 2011;36:794–805.
16.
GorlinRJCohenMMHennekamR. Syndromes of the Head and Neck. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001.
17.
GougoutasAJSinghDJLowDWBartlettSP. Hemifacial microsomia: clinical features and pictographic representations of the OMENS classification system. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120:112e–120e.
18.
HeikeCLStueckleLPStuhaugETPimentaLADrakeAFVivaldiDSieKCBirgfeldCB. Photographic protocol for image acquisition in craniofacial microsomia. Head Face Med. 2011;7:25.
19.
HeikeCLWallaceESpeltzMLSieboldBWerlerMMHingAVBirgfeldCBCollettBRLerouxBGLuquettiDV. Characterizing facial features in individuals with craniofacial microsomia: a systematic approach for clinical research. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2016;106:915–926.
20.
HollodyK.KamposK. Delayed speech development with facial asymmetry. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2005;9:415–418.
21.
HorganJEPadwaBLLRAMullikenJB. OMENS-plus: Analysis of craniofacial and extracraniofacial anomalies in hemifacial microsomia. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1995;32:405–412.
22.
IshiiLCareyJByrnePZeeDSIshiiM. Measuring attentional bias to peripheral facial appearance. Laryngoscope. 2009;119:459–465
23.
JonesKL. Smith’s recognizable patterns of human malformation. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders; 2006.
24.
LansdownRRumseyNBradburyECarrAPartridgeJ. Visibly different: coping with disfigurement. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1997.
25.
LauritzenCMunrolRRossRB. Classification and treatment of hemifacial microsomia. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1985;19:33–39.
26.
LevineEDegutisLPruzinskyTShinJPersingJA. Quality of life and facial trauma: psychological and body image effects. Ann Plast Surg. 2005;54:502–510.
27.
LindsayGDockrellJ. The behavior and self-esteem of children with specific speech and language difficulties. Br J Educ Psychol. 2000;70:583–601.
28.
MarisCLEndrigaMCOmnellMLSpeltzML. Psychosocial adjustment in twin pairs with and without hemifacial microsomia. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1999;36:43–50.
29.
MeyersonMD. Resiliency and success in adults with Moebius syndrome. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2001;38:231–235.
30.
MyersKMCollettBR. Rating scales. In: DulcanMWienerJM, eds. Essentials of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2006:81–97.
31.
NelsonPA. Qualitative approaches in craniofacial research. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2009;46:245–251.
32.
PadwaBLEvansCAPillemerFC. Psychosocial adjustment in children with hemifacial microsomia and other craniofacial deformities. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1991;28:354–359.
33.
PertschukMJWhitakerLA. Psychosocial adjustment and craniofacial malformations in childhood. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1985;75:177–184.
34.
PillemerFGCookKV. The psychosocial adjustment of pediatric craniofacial patients after surgery. Cleft Palate J. 1989;26:201–207.
35.
PopeAWWardJ. Self-perceived facial appearance and psychosocial adjustment in preadolescents with craniofacial anomalies. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997;34:396–401.
36.
PoswilloD. The pathogenesis of the first and second branchial arch syndrome. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1973;35:302–328.
RobinsJMRotznitzkyAZhaoLP. Estimation of regression coefficients when some regressors are not always observed. J Am Stat Assoc. 1994;89:846–866.
39.
RubinKHCoplanRJBowkerJC. Social withdrawal in childhood. Annu Rev Psychol. 2009;60:141–171.
40.
RumseyN. Body image and congenital conditions with visible differences. In: CashTFPruzinskyT, eds. Body Image: A Handbook of Theory, Research, and Clinical Practice. New York, NY: Guilford; 2002a:226–233.
41.
RumseyN. Optimizing body image in disfiguring congenital conditions. In: CashTFPruzinksyT, eds. Body Image: A Handbook of Theory, Research, and Clinical Practice. New York, NY: Guilford; 2002b:431–439.
42.
RumseyNHarcourtD. Body image and disfigurement: issues and interventions. Body Image. 2004;1:83–97.
43.
RussellGRyderDNorwichBFordT. Behavioural difficulties that co-occur with specific word reading difficulties: A UK population-based cohort study. Dyslexia. 2015;21:123–141.
44.
SharifMOCalleryPTierneyS. The perspectives of children and young people living with cleft lip and palate: a review of qualitative literature. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2013;50:297–304.
45.
SnyderHTBilboulMJPopeAW. Pyschosocial adjustment in adolescents with craniofacial anomalies: a comparison of parents and self-reports. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42:548–555.
46.
SnyderHPopeAW. Psychosocial adjustment in children and adolescents with a craniofacial anomaly: diagnosis-specific patterns. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2010;47:264–272.
47.
SpeltzMLWallaceERCollettBRHeikeCLLuquettiDVWerlerM. Intelligence and academic achievement of adolescents with craniofacial microsomia. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140:571–580.
48.
StrömlandKMillerMSjögreenLJohanssonMJoelssonBMBillstedtEGillbergCDanielssonSJacobssonCAndersson-NorinderJ. Oculo-auriculo-vertebral spectrum: associated anomalies, functional deficits and possible developmental risk factors. Am J Med Genet A. 2007;143A:1317–1325.
49.
VarniJWBurwinkleTMKatzERMeeskeKDickinsonP. The PedsQL in pediatric cancer: reliability and validity of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory Generic Core Scales, Multidimensional Fatigue Scale, and Cancer Module. Cancer. 2002;94:2090–2106.
50.
VarniJWSeidMKurtinPS. PedsQL 4.0: reliability and validity of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory version 4.0 generic core scales in healthy and patient populations. Med Care. 2001;39:800–812.
51.
WerlerMMSheehanJEHayesCPadwaBLMitchellAAMullikenJB. Demographic and reproductive factors associated with hemifacial microsomia. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2004;41:494–450.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
