4.5 Article

Cleft Lip and/or Cleft Palate: Prenatal Accuracy, Postnatal Course, and Long-Term Outcomes

期刊

CHILDREN-BASEL
卷 9, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/children9121880

关键词

cleft lip; cleft palate; prenatal diagnosis; anomaly scan; post-natal; ultrasound diagnosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This retrospective study assessed the efficacy of prenatal sonographic diagnosis of orofacial clefts and the postnatal outcomes of these children. The study found a low accuracy rate for prenatal sonographic diagnosis and highlighted the importance of improving parental counseling and therapeutic plans.
Orofacial clefts include cleft lip (CL) and cleft palate (CP). This retrospective study assessed the efficacy of prenatal sonographic diagnosis of isolated and non-isolated cases of CL/CP and the postnatal outcomes of these children. Data regarding patients diagnosed and treated in the tertiary orofacial clinic from 2000 to 2020 were retrieved from electronic medical records and telephone-based questionnaires. Isolated CL was found in 7 cases (7.2%), isolated CP in 51 (53%), and combined CL/CP in 38 (39.5%), and 22 cases (23%) were associated with other anomalies. Among 96 cases, 39 (40.6%) were diagnosed prenatally. Isolated CL was diagnosed in 5/7 (71.5%), combined clefts in 29/38 (76.3%), and CP in 7/51 (13.8%). Prenatal chromosomal analysis performed in 32/39 (82%) cases was normal for all. The rate of surgical intervention in the first year of life was 36/38 (94.7%) for combined clefts, 5/7 (71.4%) for CL, and 20/51 (39%) for isolated CP. Most children had speech therapy (23/38 (60.5%), 3/7 (42.8%), and 41/51 (80.3%), respectively) and psychotherapy (6/38 (15.7%), 3/7 (42.8%) and, 15/51 (29.4%), respectively). The accuracy rate of sonographic prenatal diagnosis is low. Our results emphasize the suggested work-up of fetuses with CL and/or CP and improvements to parental counseling, as well as their understanding and compliance regarding post-natal therapeutic plans.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据