OBJECTIVE: To identify the average rate of revision surgery following cleft lip repair. DESIGN: PubMed, CINAHL, and SCOPUS were searched from database inception through March 2013 using the search terms cleft lip and surgery. Two investigators independently screened all abstracts and determined eligibility from review of full manuscripts using prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Strengths and limitation of the studies were assessed, followed by qualitative synthesis. The I(2) test of homogeneity was performed to determine if meta-analysis was appropriate. RESULTS: The search identified 3034 articles. Of those, 45 met the inclusion criteria. Studies were primarily case series and retrospective cohort studies, with only one randomized controlled trial. One-third of studies (n = 15) did not describe how the study sample was selected. Follow-up duration was not reported in one-fourth of studies (n = 11). Nasolabial aesthetics were reported in 44% of studies (n = 20). The incidence of revision surgery ranged from 0% to 100%. Meta-analysis was precluded because of study heterogeneity (I(2) = 97%). CONCLUSIONS: The average incidence of cleft lip revision surgery cannot be estimated from the published literature, due to significant heterogeneity among existing reports and limited study quality. To provide valid information about the burden of care for unilateral cleft lip, a population-based or multicenter longitudinal cohort study is necessary; this study should measure the number of surgical procedures and the patient's aesthetic outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To identify the average rate of revision surgery following cleft lip repair. DESIGN: PubMed, CINAHL, and SCOPUS were searched from database inception through March 2013 using the search terms cleft lip and surgery. Two investigators independently screened all abstracts and determined eligibility from review of full manuscripts using prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Strengths and limitation of the studies were assessed, followed by qualitative synthesis. The I(2) test of homogeneity was performed to determine if meta-analysis was appropriate. RESULTS: The search identified 3034 articles. Of those, 45 met the inclusion criteria. Studies were primarily case series and retrospective cohort studies, with only one randomized controlled trial. One-third of studies (n = 15) did not describe how the study sample was selected. Follow-up duration was not reported in one-fourth of studies (n = 11). Nasolabial aesthetics were reported in 44% of studies (n = 20). The incidence of revision surgery ranged from 0% to 100%. Meta-analysis was precluded because of study heterogeneity (I(2) = 97%). CONCLUSIONS: The average incidence of cleft lip revision surgery cannot be estimated from the published literature, due to significant heterogeneity among existing reports and limited study quality. To provide valid information about the burden of care for unilateral cleft lip, a population-based or multicenter longitudinal cohort study is necessary; this study should measure the number of surgical procedures and the patient's aesthetic outcomes.
Authors: Thomas J Sitzman; Adam C Carle; Jaclyn N Lundberg; Pamela C Heaton; Michael A Helmrath; Carroll-Ann Trotman; Maria T Britto Journal: Cleft Palate Craniofac J Date: 2019-10-09