To evaluate how patient-reported outcomes change from pre- to post-operation after common procedures in patients with cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P), as well as compared to patients who did not undergo surgery.
Design
Retrospective chart review.
Setting
Tertiary care hospital in the United States.
Patients
All patients with CL/P who had multiple CLEFT-Q completions from 2021 to 2025.
Main Outcome Measure
CLEFT-Q scores.
Results
Totally, 256 patients with 594 CLEFT-Q responses were included. Sixty (23.4%) patients received 66 craniofacial operations between CLEFT-Q completions. Of these operations, 16 (24.2%) were dental extractions/exposures, 15 (22.7%) rhinoplasties, 10 (15.2%) velopharyngeal insufficiency repairs, 6 (9.1%) alveolar bone grafts, 6 (9.1%) orthognathic surgeries, and 4 (6.1%) oronasal fistula repairs. Surgical patients had lower first CLEFT-Q scores across nearly all domains compared to those in the non-surgical cohort (P < .05). Patients who underwent rhinoplasty (n = 15) demonstrated increased face (64.1 vs 49.6, P = .006), nose (64.8 vs 43.3, P = .003), nostrils (62.0 vs 34.2, P = .001), teeth (59.5 vs 41.3, P = .008), and lips (63.5 vs 48.4, P = .007) scores post-operatively. Jaw scores increased following orthognathic surgery, though this did not reach significance (71.2 vs 55.8, P = .100). No other operation had a statistically significant impact on CLEFT-Q scores (P > .05).
Conclusions
Patients who underwent surgery demonstrated improvements in post-operative CLEFT-Q scores compared to patients who did not undergo surgery during this surveyed period. Of those who underwent surgery, rhinoplasty was associated with the most significant improvements in patient facial perception post-operatively.
MassenburgHopperCroweMorrisonAlonsoCalisDonkorKreshantiYuan . Global burden of orofacial clefts and the world surgical workforce. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;148(4):568e-580e.
2.
Parameters for evaluation and treatment of patients with cleft lip/palate or other craniofacial differences. The Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(1):137-156.
3.
KantarRSHamdanUSMullerJNHemalKYounanRAHaddadMMelhemAMDon GriotJPWBreugemCCMokdadAH. Global prevalence and burden of orofacial clefts: A systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019. J Craniofac Surg. 2023;34(7):2012-2015.
4.
SharmaVPBellaHCadierMMPigottRWGoodacreTEERichardBM. Outcomes in facial aesthetics in cleft lip and palate surgery: A systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg.2012;65(9):1233-1245.
5.
Hocevar-BoltezarIJarcAKozeljV. Ear, nose and voice problems in children with orofacial clefts. J Laryngol Otol. 2006;120(4):276-281.
6.
MillerCK. Feeding issues and interventions in infants and children with clefts and craniofacial syndromes. Semin Speech Lang. 2011;32(2):115-126.
7.
AlloriACKelleyTMearaJGAlbertABonanthayaKChapmanKCunninghamMDaskalogiannakisJDe GierHHeggieAA, et al.A standard set of outcome measures for the comprehensive appraisal of cleft care. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017;54(5):540-554.
8.
ZeraatkarMAjamiSNadjmiNFaghihiSAGolkariA. A qualitative study of children’s quality of life in the context of living with cleft lip and palate. Pediatric Health Med Ther. 2019;10:13-20.
9.
DamianoPCTylerMCRomittiPAMomanyETJonesMPCanadyJWKarnellMPMurrayJC. Health-related quality of life among preadolescent children with oral clefts: The mother’s perspective. Pediatrics. 2007;120(2):e283-e290.
10.
KramerFJGruberRFialkaFSinikovicBHahnWSchliephakeH. Quality of life in school-age children with orofacial clefts and their families. J Craniofac Surg. 2009;20(6):2061-2066.
11.
AntonarakisGSPatelRNTompsonB. Oral health-related quality of life in non-syndromic cleft lip and/or palate patients: A systematic review. Community Dent Health. 2013;30(3):189-195.
12.
KlassenAFTsangarisEForrestCRWongKWYPusicALCanoSJSyedIDuaMKainthSJohnsonJ, et al.Quality of life of children treated for cleft lip and/or palate: A systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2012;65(5):547-557.
13.
McIntyreJKSethiHSchönbrunnerAProudfootJJonesMGosmanA. Number of surgical procedures for patients with cleft lip and palate from birth to 21 years old at a single children's hospital. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;76(Suppl. 3):S205-S208.
14.
ConradALAlbertMCrerandCECrilly BellucciCHeppnerCESheikhFWoodardSKapp-SimonKA. Retrospective evaluation of number of surgeries and parent ratings of academic and behavioral functioning among children with isolated oral clefts. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2021;58(10):1294-1303.
15.
PloumenRLMWillemseSHJonkmanREGNolteJWBeckingAG. Quality of life after orthognathic surgery in patients with cleft: An overview of available patient-reported outcome measures. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2023;60(4):405-412.
16.
TsangarisEWong RiffKWYGoodacreTForrestCRDreiseMSykesJde ChalainTHarmanKO’MahonyAPusicAL, et al.Establishing content validity of the CLEFT-Q: A new patient-reported outcome instrument for cleft lip/palate. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5(4):e1305.
17.
HarrisonCJRaeCTsangarisEWong RiffKWYSwanMCGoodacreTEECanoSKlassenAF. Further construct validation of the CLEFT-Q: Ability to detect differences in outcome for four cleft-specific surgeries. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2019;72(12):2049-2055.
18.
MiroshnychenkoARaeCWong RiffKForrestCRGoodacreTSwanMCSlatorRGoldsteinJThomaAHarmanK, et al.A prospective study to examine responsiveness and minimally important differences (MIDs) for the CLEFT-Q scales following three cleft-specific operations. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2023;60(4):413-420.
19.
MichaelAIOlusanyaAA. The cleft Q as an outcome measure after palatoplasty. Afr J Paediatr Surg. 2022;19(4):268-270.
20.
ChangC-SWallaceCGHsiaoY-CLuT-CChenS-HChanF-CChenPK-TChenJ-PChangC-JNoordhoffMS. Patient and parent reported outcome measures in cleft lip and palate patients before and after secondary alveolar bone grafting. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(52):e9541.
21.
YasinLBeckerMSvenssonHWiedelAP. Long-term patient-reported outcomes after anterior distraction osteogenesis of the maxilla in patients with cleft. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2023;57(1-6):488-493.
22.
BhuskuteASkirkoJRRothCBayoumiADurbin-JohnsonBTollefsonTT. Association of velopharyngeal insufficiency with quality of life and patient-reported outcomes after speech surgery. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2017;19(5):406-412.
23.
RickettsSRegevEAntonyshynOMKissAFialkovJA. Use of the derriford appearance scale 59 to assess patient-reported outcomes in secondary cleft surgery. Plast Surg (Oakv). 2016;24(1):27-31.
24.
WangETranJTChapaEMCodyRGreivesMRNguyenPD. Correlation of orthognathic surgical movements to perception of facial appearance in patients with cleft lip and palate. J Craniofac Surg. 2024;35(4):1205-1208.
25.
CampbellARestrepoCDeshpandeGBernsteinSMTredwayCWendbyLSchonmeyrB. Validation of the unilateral cleft lip severity Index for surgeons and laypersons. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5(9):e1479.
26.
MassenburgBBNJBanalaMSussmanJHSussmanJRomeoDJWuMJacksonOALowDWTaylorJASwansonJW. A long-term cohort assessment of aesthetic and anthropometric outcomes. Eur Cleft Palate Craniofac Assoc Congr. 2024.
27.
SalineroLKVillavisanisDFCheungLFerroDFFolsomNChoDYLowDWJacksonOBartlettSPSwansonJW. Integration of the CLEFT-Q patient-reported outcome tool into a multidisciplinary cleft and craniofacial clinic: A proof of concept. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2024;154(2):351e-355e.
28.
KlassenAFRiffKWWLongmireNMAlbertAAllenGCAydinMABakerSBCanoSJChanAJCourtemancheDJ, et al.Psychometric findings and normative values for the CLEFT-Q based on 2434 children and young adult patients with cleft lip and/or palate from 12 countries. CMAJ. 2018;190(15):E455-E462.
29.
Wong RiffKWYTsangarisEGoodacreTEEForrestCRLawsonJPusicALKlassenAF. What matters to patients with cleft lip and/or palate: An international qualitative study informing the development of the CLEFT-Q. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(3):442-450.
30.
A user’s guide for researchers and clinicians. McMaster University; 2017. https://qportfolio.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CLEFT-Q-USERS-GUIDE.pdf.
31.
R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2010. http://www.R-project.org
Functions for medical statistics book with some demographic data. Version Version 0.7.6. CRAN; 2024, https://minato.sip21c.org/msb/.
36.
BroderHLWilson-GendersonMSischoLNormanRG. Examining factors associated with oral health–related quality of life for youth with cleft. Plast Reconstr Surg.2014;133(6):828e-834e.
37.
PotemraHMKLinJBertrandAADe LeonFSAlfordJAHuACWilsonLLeeJC. Long-term effect of multiple operations on psychosocial function in teenage cleft lip and palate patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;146(1):61e-68e.
HanNANgJJSaikaliLMTolleyPDCheungLJacksonOALowDWSwansonJWBartlettSP, TaylorJA. Definitive cleft rhinoplasty: A 15-year single-institution review of surgical techniques and outcomes. Unpublished.
40.
BengtssonMAl-AteyahAWallGBecktorJPRasmussonL. Outcome of photographic evaluation of facial appearance in orthognathic surgery: How does it correlate with planning of treatment and patient-reported outcome?Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;57(4):345-351.
41.
ChoiKJWlodarczykJRNagengastESWolfswinkelEMunabiNCOYaoCMageeWP. The likelihood of orthognathic surgery after orofacial cleft repair. J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(3):902-906.
42.
DunworthKHernandezJAChingJGoldenBNguyenPDPatelKRogers-VizenaCRRottgersSAAlloriAC. Aesthetic outcomes in cleft care: Exploring patterns in patient-reported outcomes across adolescence. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2024;154(4):841-853.
43.
SalineroLKRomeoDJPontellME, FriedmanL, AhluwaliaVS, WagnerCS, BarreroCE, NapoliJ, JacksonOA, LowDW, et al.Psychosocial status and self-perception in patients with cleft lip and/or palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2024;4:10556656241236369.
44.
SalineroLKCheungLVillavisanisDFWagnerCSBarreroCEPontellMEJacksonOATaylorJALowDWSwansonJW. How does CLEFT-Q change the way we practice? A prospective study integrating patient-reported outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2024;154(5):1037-1045.
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.
