Search

Objectives : To (1) appraise current international classification and clinical management strategies for craniofacial microsomia (CFM) and microtia, and (2) to assess agreement with the European Reference Network "European Guideline Craniofacial Microsomia" recommendations on screening and monitoring. Design : This was a cross-sectional online survey study. The survey consisted of 44 questions on demographics, diagnostics and classification, obstructive sleep apnea, feeding difficulties, speech and language development, hearing, ocular abnormalities, visual development, orthodontic screening, genetic counselling, psychological wellbeing, and extracraniofacial anomalies. Participants : Respondents were participants of 3 international cleft and craniofacial conferences, members of the American Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Association and members of the International Society for Auricular Reconstruction. Respondents were requested to complete 1 questionnaire per multidisciplinary team. Results : Fifty-seven responses were received from 30 countries (response rate ∼3%).The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement diagnostic criteria were used by 86% of respondents, though 65% considered isolated microtia a mild form of CFM. The Orbit, Mandible, Ear, Facial Nerve and Soft Tissue classification system was used by 74% of respondents. Agreement with standardized screening and monitoring recommendations was between 61% and 97%. A majority of respondents agreed with screening for extracraniofacial anomalies (63%-68%) and with genetic counselling (81%). Conclusions : This survey did not reveal consistent agreement on the diagnostic criteria for CFM. Respondents mostly supported management recommendations, but frequently disagreed with the standardization of care. Future studies could focus on working towards international consensus on diagnostic criteria, and exploring internationally feasible management strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Suture extrusion has been reported to be the most common complication following cartilage-sparing otoplasty. Several studies have described various designs of postauricular flaps to cover the cartilage sutures and reduce the incidence of suture extrusion., Patients and Methods: One hundred consecutive patients with prominent ears were operated between January 2018 and February 2023 using a de-epithelialized postauricular dermofascial flap that is performed as an adjunct to our cartilage-sparing otoplasty technique which is essentially a combined modified Mustardé and Furnas technique. The flap is used to cover the cartilage holding sutures with an extra layer of vascularized tissue to avoid the scar being directly over these sutures., Results: The median age of patients was 12 (IQR 9-15) years. One out of the 100 patients (1%) developed a postauricular skin infection requiring surgical removal of sutures. Primary suture extrusion did not occur, compared to our earlier study of cartilage-sparing technique without the postauricular flap in which 17 out of 200 patients had suture extrusion (p=0.001). No hematoma occurred that necessitated return to the theatre. Skin necrosis and wound dehiscence did not occur in any case. No patients developed cartilage deformities or relapse requiring surgical correction., Conclusions: Combining cartilage-sparing otoplasty using sutures and the described postauricular dermofascial flap is simple to perform and has significantly reduced the complication rate and improved the outcome compared to cartilage-sparing otoplasty alone. We recommend using this flap for both primary and revisional otoplasty., (Copyright © 2024 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Objective: The severity of craniofacial microsomia (CFM) is generally classified using the Orbit, Mandible, Ear, Soft tissue, Nerve (OMENS) classification score. The global assessment of the Phenotypic Assessment Tool for Craniofacial Microsomia (PAT-CFM), is a pictorial modification of the OMENS classification. The aim of this study was to assess the interrater reliability of the PAT-CFM global assessment score., Design: In this prospective cohort study, three clinicians completed the global assessment form of the PAT-CFM. The mandible was classified based on orthopantomogram- and/or computed tomography images., Participants: Consecutive patients with CFM or microtia., Interrater agreement was calculated using the weighted Krippendorff alpha (α), with 95% confidence intervals (CI)., Results: In total, 53 patients were included (106 hemifaces). The reliabilities of the main classification components ranged from high for the mandible (α = 0.904 [95% CI 0.860-0.948]) and ear (α = 0.958 [95% CI 0.934-0.983]) subscales, to tentative for the orbital summary score (α = 0.682 [0.542-0.821]), and nerve summary score (α = 0.782 [0.666-0.900]) subscales., Conclusions: The reliability of the ear and radiographic mandible scales of the PAT-CFM global classification were high, while the orbit, facial nerve and soft tissue subscales may have limited reliability. Research focusing on radiographic severity scores for hypoplasia of the orbits and soft tissues, as well as objective measures for overall facial hypoplasia using non-ionizing forms of imaging for early classification, are warranted., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

To (1) appraise current international classification and clinical management strategies for craniofacial microsomia (CFM) and microtia, and (2) to assess agreement with the European Reference Network "European Guideline Craniofacial Microsomia" recommendations on screening and monitoring., This was a cross-sectional online survey study. The survey consisted of 44 questions on demographics, diagnostics and classification, obstructive sleep apnea, feeding difficulties, speech and language development, hearing, ocular abnormalities, visual development, orthodontic screening, genetic counselling, psychological wellbeing, and extracraniofacial anomalies., Respondents were participants of 3 international cleft and craniofacial conferences, members of the American Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Association and members of the International Society for Auricular Reconstruction. Respondents were requested to complete 1 questionnaire per multidisciplinary team., Fifty-seven responses were received from 30 countries (response rate ∼3%).The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement diagnostic criteria were used by 86% of respondents, though 65% considered isolated microtia a mild form of CFM. The Orbit, Mandible, Ear, Facial Nerve and Soft Tissue classification system was used by 74% of respondents. Agreement with standardized screening and monitoring recommendations was between 61% and 97%. A majority of respondents agreed with screening for extracraniofacial anomalies (63%-68%) and with genetic counselling (81%)., This survey did not reveal consistent agreement on the diagnostic criteria for CFM. Respondents mostly supported management recommendations, but frequently disagreed with the standardization of care. Future studies could focus on working towards international consensus on diagnostic criteria, and exploring internationally feasible management strategies.