OBJECTIVE: This analysis is a subset of a larger systematic review. The objective of this study is to determine the effects of MDO on feeding and GERD.
DATA SOURCES: The databases searched included PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Knowledge and grey literature sources.
STUDY SELECTION: The inclusion criterion included studies in children with clinical evidence of micrognathia/Pierre Robin Sequence (PRS) who have failed conservative treatments, including both syndromic (sMicro) and non-syndromic (iPRS) patients. 21 studies relevant to feeding and 4 studies relevant to GERD outcomes were included. All studies included were case series and case reports.
RESULTS: MDO leads to a significant improvement in feeding, with 82% of children feeding exclusively orally after surgery. The overall percentage of children with iPRS who were feeding orally was 93.7% compared with only 72.9% in the sMicro group (p<0.004). A growth decline within the first six weeks after surgery was observed in multiple studies. Overall, out of 70 patients with pre-operative GERD, only four had evidence of GERD after surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: Considering the limitations of this systematic review, this study found that successful relief of airway obstruction by MDO leads to improvement of feeding and improvement in symptoms of GERD in children with upper airway obstruction secondary to micrognathia. Clinicians need to be aware of the risk of growth decline in the initial post-operative period.
METHOD: A prospective analysis was conducted on 173 patients (346 ears) with cleft lip and palate (CL/P) who presented to the combined cleft clinic at University Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC) over 12 months. The patients' hearing status was determined using otoacoustic emission (OAE), pure tone audiometry (PTA) and auditory brainstem response (ABR). These results were analysed against several parameters, which included age, gender, race, types of cleft pathology, impact and timing of repair surgery.
RESULTS: The patients' age ranged from 1-26 years old. They comprised 30% with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP), 28% with bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP), 28% with isolated cleft palate (ICP) and 14% with isolated cleft lip (ICL). Majority of the patients (68.2%) had normal otoscopic findings. Out of the 346 ears, 241 ears (70%) ears had passed the hearing tests. There was no significant relationship between patients' gender and ethnicity with their hearing status. The types of cleft pathology significantly influenced the outcome of PTA and ABR screening results (p
METHOD: A total of one hundred and seven patients from age five to twelve years old with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate were included in the study. These patients have received cheiloplasty and one stage palatoplasty surgery but yet to receive alveolar bone grafting procedure. Five assessors trained in the use of the EUROCRAN index underwent calibration exercise and ranked the dental arch relationships and palatal morphology of the patients' study models. For intra-rater agreement, the examiners scored the models twice, with two weeks interval in between sessions. Variable factors of the patients were collected and they included gender, site, type and, family history of unilateral cleft lip and palate; absence of lateral incisor on cleft side, cheiloplasty and palatoplasty technique used. Associations between various factors and dental arch relationships were assessed using logistic regression analysis.
RESULT: Dental arch relationship among unilateral cleft lip and palate in local population had relatively worse scoring than other parts of the world. Crude logistics regression analysis did not demonstrate any significant associations among the various socio-demographic factors, cheiloplasty and palatoplasty techniques used with the dental arch relationship outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: This study has limitations that might have affected the results, example: having multiple operators performing the surgeries and the inability to access the influence of underlying genetic predisposed cranio-facial variability. These may have substantial influence on the treatment outcome. The factors that can affect unilateral cleft lip and palate treatment outcome is multifactorial in nature and remained controversial in general.