Comparing Outcomes of Traditional Lip Repair Versus Early Cleft Lip Repair on a National Scale

Abstract

Background: Cleft lip (CL) is one of the most common congenital anomalies and has traditionally been repaired surgically when the patient is between 3 and 6 months of age. However, recent single-institutional studies have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of early CL repairs (ECLRs) during the neonatal period. This study seeks to evaluate the outcomes of ECLR (repair <1 month) versus traditional lip repair (TLR) by comparing outcomes on a national scale.

Methods: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Pediatric Date File was used to query patients who underwent CL repairs between 2012 and 2022. The main outcome measures were anesthesia times and perioperative complications. The main predictive variable was operative group (ECLR vs TLR). Patients were considered to be in the ECLR cohort if they were younger than 30 days after birth at the time of cleft repair. Student t test and χ2 analyses were used to evaluate categorical and continuous differences, respectively. Multiple logistic regression was performed to model the association of ECLR versus TLR with death within 30 days, overall complication rates, dehiscence rates, readmission within 30 days, and reoperation rates while controlling for various covariates.

Results: Multiple linear regression determined that the ECLR cohort had significantly shorter operative times when controlling for operative complications, sex, cardiac risk factors, and American Society of Anesthesiologists class (coefficient = -34.4; confidence interval, -47.8 to -20.9; P < 0.001). Similarly, multiple linear regression demonstrated ECLR patients to have significantly shorter time of exposure to anesthesia (coefficient = -35.0; 95% confidence interval, -50.3 to -19.7; P < 0.001). Multiple logistic regression demonstrated that ECLR was not significantly associated with an increased likelihood of any postoperative complication when controlling for sex, cardiac risk factors, and American Society of Anesthesiologists class (P = 0.26).

Conclusions: The findings of this study provide nationwide evidence that ECLR does not lead to an increased risk of adverse outcomes or complications. In addition, ECLR patients have shorter surgeries and shorter exposure to anesthesia compared with TLR. The results provide further evidence that ECLR can be done safely where earlier intervention may result in better feeding/weight gain and subsequently improve cleft care. However, longer-term studies are warranted to further elucidate the effects of this protocol.