Thomas J. Sitzman

Anatomic sites of origin of the suprascapular and lateral pectoral nerves within the brachial plexus.

Background: The goal of this study was to clarify the anatomical origins of the suprascapular and lateral pectoral nerves from the brachial plexus as an aid to surgical exploration. Methods: Both nerves were studied in 100 adult cadaver specimens. Topographic points of origin were described as distance from the bifurcation of the upper trunk or distance from the formation point of the lateral cord, using visual anatomical models. Results: The suprascapular nerve originated from (1) the posterior division of the upper trunk distal to the bifurcation of the upper trunk (61 specimens); (2) the point of upper trunk bifurcation (29 cases); (3) the upper trunk proximal to the bifurcation point (six cases); and (4) directly from the C5 root (four cases). The lateral pectoral nerve originated from (1) the anterior division of the upper trunk proximal to the point of lateral cord formation (88 cases); (2) the point of lateral cord formation (five cases); (3) the lateral cord distal to the lateral cord formation point (four cases); and (4) the anterior division of the middle trunk (three cases). Eighty-two cases had origins from both the anterior upper trunk and the anterior middle trunk. Conclusions: The suprascapular nerve most frequently originates from the posterior division of the upper trunk, and the lateral pectoral nerve from the anterior divisions of the upper and middle trunks. This information can be used to guide the surgeon in identifying the key landmarks of the supraclavicular brachial plexus at surgical exploration.

Clinical criteria for obtaining maxillofacial computed tomographic scans in trauma patients.

Background: Over 150,000 patients present with maxillofacial trauma annually to emergency rooms in the United States. Although maxillofacial computed tomography is a sensitive screening tool for identifying facial fractures, indiscriminate use leads to unnecessary radiation exposure and substantial costs. A decision instrument is needed to ensure computed tomographic evaluation of patients at high risk for facial fracture and limit computed tomography use in low-risk patients. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of all patients evaluated at a Level I trauma center over a 3-year period. Inclusion criteria were maxillofacial examination on presentation, maxillofacial computed tomography, and head computed tomography. A total of 525 patients met the enrollment criteria. Results: Injury to the maxillofacial skeleton occurred in 332 patients (63.2 percent). The presence of any of the following five physical examination criteria identified patients at high risk for facial fracture: bony stepoff or instability, periorbital swelling or contusion, Glasgow Coma Scale score less than 14, malocclusion, or tooth absence. These criteria identified all but six of the 332 patients with a facial fracture (sensitivity, 98.2 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 96.5 to 99.1 percent). The negative predictive value was 87.8 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 76.3 to 94.2 percent). No patient determined by these criteria to be at low risk for a facial fracture required surgical treatment. If these criteria had been applied to the study population, radiographic imaging could have been avoided in 9.3 percent of patients. Conclusions: A decision instrument based on clinical criteria can ensure appropriate screening of patients at high risk for facial facture. Application of this instrument may reduce unnecessary maxillofacial imaging.

The Americleft Project: Burden of Care from Secondary Surgery

Background: The burden of care for children with cleft lip and palate extends beyond primary repair. Children may undergo multiple secondary surgeries to improve appearance or speech. The purpose of this study was to compare the use of secondary surgery between cleft centers. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 130 children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate treated consecutively at 4 cleft centers in North America. Data were collected on all lip, palate, and nasal surgeries. Nasolabial appearance was rated by a panel of judges using the Asher-McDade scale. Risk of secondary surgery was compared between centers using the log-rank test, and hazard ratios estimated with a Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Median follow-up was 18 years (interquartile range, 15–19). There were significant differences among centers in the risks of secondary lip surgery (P < 0.001) and secondary rhinoplasty (P < 0.001). The cumulative risk of secondary lip surgery by 10 years of age ranged from 5% to 60% among centers. The cumulative risk of secondary rhinoplasty by 20 years of age ranged from 47% to 79% among centers. No significant differences in nasolabial appearance were found between children who underwent secondary lip or nasal surgery and children who underwent only primary surgery (P > 0.10). Conclusions: Although some cleft centers were significantly more likely to perform secondary surgery, the use of secondary surgery did not achieve significantly better nasolabial appearance than what was achieved by children who underwent only primary surgery.

National Estimates of and Risk Factors for Inpatient Revision Surgeries for Orofacial Clefts.

Objective To provide national estimates of the number and cost of primary and revision cleft lip and palate surgeries in the U.S. and to determine patient and hospital characteristics associated with disproportionate use of revision surgery. Design Retrospective cross-sectional study using data obtained from the 2003, 2006, and 2009 Kids’ Inpatient Database. Setting Inpatient. Patients Children with CL, CP, or CLP undergoing inpatient cleft lip and/or palate surgery. Interventions Inpatient cleft lip and/or palate surgery. Main Outcome Measures Orofacial cleft surgery estimates, estimates of primary versus revision surgeries, and estimated inflation-adjusted hospitalization costs. Results In 2009, there were a total of 2824 and 5431 hospitalizations for cleft lip and palate surgeries, respectively. Revision surgery accounted for 24.2% of cleft lip surgeries and 36.8% of cleft palate surgeries. Children with CLP (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.48-2.38), a syndromic diagnosis (OR 1.47, 95% CI: 1.16-1.87), or private insurance (OR 1.71, 95% CI: 1.41-2.09) were more likely to undergo cleft lip revision surgery. Similar risk factors were found for children undergoing cleft palate revision. Mean cost per hospitalization ranged from

A standard set of outcome measures for the comprehensive appraisal of cleft care

7564 to

The Burden of Care for Children With Unilateral Cleft Lip: A Systematic Review of Revision Surgery.

8393 in 2009, depending on surgery type, and did not change significantly (in 2009 U.S.

Reliability of Oronasal Fistula Classification.

) between 2003 and 2009. Conclusions Interventions to reduce revision surgery by improving results of primary surgery should be targeted in the population of identified high-risk (e.g., syndromic) patients. In addition, the association of health insurance status with revision surgery highlights the need to understand and address the impact of economic disparities on cleft care delivery.

Variation among cleft centres in the use of secondary surgery for children with cleft palate: a retrospective cohort study

Care of the patient with cleft lip and/or palate remains complex. Prior attempts at aggregating data to study the effectiveness of specific interventions or overall treatment protocols have been hindered by a lack of data standards. There exists a critical need to better define the outcomes- particularly those that matter most to patients and their families-and to standardize the methods by which these outcomes will be measured. This report summarizes the recommendations of an international, multidisciplinary working group with regard to which outcomes a typical cleft team could track, how those outcomes could be measured and recorded, and what strategies may be employed to sustainably implement a system for prospective data collection. It is only by agreeing on a common, standard set of outcome measures for the comprehensive appraisal of cleft care that intercenter comparisons can become possible. This is important for quality-improvement endeavors, comparative effectiveness research, and value-based health-care reform.

Validation of Clinical Criteria for Obtaining Maxillofacial Computed Tomography in Patients With Trauma.

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 I2 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 (I2 = 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 patients aesthetic outcomes.

Abstract 119: Validation of Clinical Criteria for Obtaining Maxillofacial CT in Trauma Patients.

Objective: Oronasal fistula is an important complication of cleft palate repair that is frequently used to evaluate surgical quality, yet reliability of fistula classification has never been examined. The objective of this study was to determine the reliability of oronasal fistula classification both within individual surgeons and between multiple surgeons. Design: Using intraoral photographs of children with repaired cleft palate, surgeons rated the location of palatal fistulae using the Pittsburgh Fistula Classification System. Intrarater and interrater reliability scores were calculated for each region of the palate. Participants: Eight cleft surgeons rated photographs obtained from 29 children. Results: Within individual surgeons reliability for each region of the Pittsburgh classification ranged from moderate to almost perfect (κ = .60-.96). By contrast, reliability between surgeons was lower, ranging from fair to substantial (κ = .23-.70). Between-surgeon reliability was lowest for the junction of the soft and hard palates (κ = .23). Within-surgeon and between-surgeon reliability were almost perfect for the more general classification of fistula in the secondary palate (κ = .95 and κ = .83, respectively). Conclusions: This is the first reliability study of fistula classification. We show that the Pittsburgh Fistula Classification System is reliable when used by an individual surgeon, but less reliable when used among multiple surgeons. Comparisons of fistula occurrence among surgeons may be subject to less bias if they use the more general classification of “presence or absence of fistula of the secondary palate” rather than the Pittsburgh Fistula Classification System.