-
The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery Sep 2023Characteristics of patients with craniofacial microsomia (CFM) vary in type and severity. The diagnosis is based on phenotypical assessment and no consensus on...
Characteristics of patients with craniofacial microsomia (CFM) vary in type and severity. The diagnosis is based on phenotypical assessment and no consensus on standardized clinical diagnostic criteria is available. The use of diagnostic criteria could improve research and communication among patients and healthcare professionals. Two sets of phenotypic criteria for research were independently developed and based on multidisciplinary consensus: the FACIAL and ICHOM criteria. This study aimed to assess the sensitivity of both criteria with an existing global multicenter database of patients with CFM and study the characteristics of patients that do not meet the criteria. A total of 730 patients with CFM from were included. Characteristics of the patients were extracted, and severity was graded using the O.M.E.N.S. and Pruzansky-Kaban classification. The sensitivity of the FACIAL and ICHOM was respectively 99.6% and 94.4%. The Cohen's kappa of 0.38 indicated a fair agreement between both criteria. Patients that did not fulfill the FACIAL criteria had facial asymmetry without additional features. It can be concluded that the FACIAL and ICHOM criteria are accurate criteria to describe patients with CFM. Both criteria could be useful for future studies on CFM to create comparable and reproducible outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Goldenhar Syndrome; Facial Asymmetry; Face; Health Personnel; Patients
PubMed: 37264504
DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000009446 -
The Cleft Palate-craniofacial Journal :... Sep 2023To (1) appraise current international classification and clinical management strategies for craniofacial microsomia (CFM) and microtia, and (2) to assess agreement with...
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 ā¼3%).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.
Topics: Humans; Goldenhar Syndrome; Congenital Microtia; Cross-Sectional Studies; Mandible; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 35469463
DOI: 10.1177/10556656221093912 -
The Cleft Palate-craniofacial Journal :... Sep 2023This paper describes 20 years of microtia and craniofacial microsomia (CFM) psychosocial and healthcare studies and suggests directions for clinical care and research. A... (Review)
Review
This paper describes 20 years of microtia and craniofacial microsomia (CFM) psychosocial and healthcare studies and suggests directions for clinical care and research. A narrative review of papers January 2000 to July 2021 related to psychosocial and healthcare experiences of individuals with microtia and CFM and their families. Studies (Nā=ā64) were mainly cross-sectional (69%), included a range of standardized measures (64%), and were with European (31%), American (27%), or multinational (23%) samples. Data were generally collected from both patients and caregivers (38%) or patient self-report (35%). Sample sizes were 11 to 25 (21%), 26 to 50 (19%), 51 to 100 (22%), or over 100 (38%). Studies addressed 5 primary topics: (1) Healthcare Experiences, including Medical Care, Hearing Loss/Amplification, Diagnostic Experiences, and Information Preferences; (2) Psychosocial Experiences, including Teasing, Behavioral Adjustment, Psychosocial Support, and Public Perception; (3) Neurocognitive Functioning and Academic Assistance; (4) Pre- and Post-Operative Psychosocial Outcomes of Ear Reconstruction/Canaloplasty; and (5) Quality of Life and Patient Satisfaction. Care involved multiple specialties and was often experienced as stressful starting at diagnosis. Psychosocial and neurocognitive functioning were generally in the average range, with possible risk for social and language concerns. Coping and resiliency were described into adulthood. Satisfaction and positive benefit of ear reconstruction/canaloplasty were high. Care recommendations include increasing: hearing amplification use, microtia and CFM knowledge among providers, efficient treatment coordination, psychosocial support, academic assistance, and advances to minimize surgical scarring. This broad literature overview informs clinical practice and research to improve psychosocial outcomes.
Topics: Humans; United States; Goldenhar Syndrome; Congenital Microtia; Quality of Life; Cross-Sectional Studies; Adaptation, Psychological
PubMed: 35382590
DOI: 10.1177/10556656221091699