4.2 Article

Cleft palate morphology, genetic etiology, and risk of mortality in infants with Robin sequence

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS PART A
Volume 185, Issue 12, Pages 3694-3700

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.62430

Keywords

cleft palate; mortality; Robin sequence; Stickler syndrome

Funding

  1. Center for Clinical and Translational Research, Clinical Research Scholars Program
  2. National Institutes of Health [K 23 HL 135346]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to investigate the differences in cleft palate among different etiologic groups and found that U-shaped cleft palate was associated with a lower risk of mortality. Specific palatal morphology may indicate an underlying genetic syndrome and higher risk of mortality.
Robin sequence (RS) has many genetic and nongenetic causes, including isolated Robin sequence (iRS), Stickler syndrome (SS), and other syndromes (SyndRS). The purpose of this study was to determine if the presence and type of cleft palate varies between etiologic groups. A secondary endpoint was to determine the relationship of etiologic group, cleft type, and mortality. Retrospective chart review of patients with RS at two high-volume craniofacial centers. 295 patients with RS identified. CP was identified in 97% with iRS, 95% with SS, and 70% of those with SyndRS (p < .0001). U-shaped CP was seen in 86% of iRS, 82% with SS, but only 27% with SyndRS (p < .0001). At one institution, 12 children (6%) with RS died, all from the SyndRS group (p < .0001). All died due to medical comorbidities related to their syndrome. Only 25% of children who died had a U-shaped CP. The most common palatal morphology among those who died was an intact palate. U-shaped CP was most strongly associated with iRS and SS, and with a lower risk of mortality. RS with submucous CP, cleft lip and palate or intact palate was strongly suggestive of an underlying genetic syndrome and higher risk of mortality.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available