Differences in the surgical and financial burden of four protocols for unilateral cleft lip and palate.

V L van Roey, A Rezaee, S C M Heemskerk, I Apon, M M Pleumeekers, I M J Mathijssen, S L Versnel
{"title":"Differences in the surgical and financial burden of four protocols for unilateral cleft lip and palate.","authors":"V L van Roey, A Rezaee, S C M Heemskerk, I Apon, M M Pleumeekers, I M J Mathijssen, S L Versnel","doi":"10.1016/j.ijom.2025.03.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The treatment of unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) involves up to four primary surgeries to restore oral function. This study was performed to evaluate the surgical burden and direct healthcare costs of four UCLP surgical protocols at Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, to guide optimal protocol selection. This retrospective cohort study included UCLP patients treated during 1990-2024. The patients were categorized into groups based on the hard palate closure timing: Oslo protocol (OP), one-stage palatoplasty protocol (OSPP), early delayed hard palate closure protocol (E-DHPCP), and late delayed hard palate closure protocol (L-DHPCP). Primary surgeries were analysed for operative duration (OD) and length of hospital stay (LOS), and their associated costs were estimated. Overall, 331 patients were included. Mean cumulative OD was significantly shorter for L-DHPCP and OSPP when compared to E-DHPCP and OP, while mean cumulative LOS was significantly longer for E-DHPCP compared to the other protocols. Mean cumulative OD was 408, 465, 425, and 507 min, and mean cumulative LOS was 3.95, 4.84, 4.07, and 4.11 nights for L-DHPCP, E-DHPCP, OSPP, and OP, respectively. Mean total costs were estimated at €17,858, €20,791, €18,545, and €21,158, respectively. L-DHPCP and OSPP demonstrated the lowest surgical burden and direct healthcare costs, although differences were minor. Therefore, the choice between these four surgical protocols should continue to be based on clinical outcomes, rather than differences in burden and costs.</p>","PeriodicalId":94053,"journal":{"name":"International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2025.03.001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The treatment of unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) involves up to four primary surgeries to restore oral function. This study was performed to evaluate the surgical burden and direct healthcare costs of four UCLP surgical protocols at Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, to guide optimal protocol selection. This retrospective cohort study included UCLP patients treated during 1990-2024. The patients were categorized into groups based on the hard palate closure timing: Oslo protocol (OP), one-stage palatoplasty protocol (OSPP), early delayed hard palate closure protocol (E-DHPCP), and late delayed hard palate closure protocol (L-DHPCP). Primary surgeries were analysed for operative duration (OD) and length of hospital stay (LOS), and their associated costs were estimated. Overall, 331 patients were included. Mean cumulative OD was significantly shorter for L-DHPCP and OSPP when compared to E-DHPCP and OP, while mean cumulative LOS was significantly longer for E-DHPCP compared to the other protocols. Mean cumulative OD was 408, 465, 425, and 507 min, and mean cumulative LOS was 3.95, 4.84, 4.07, and 4.11 nights for L-DHPCP, E-DHPCP, OSPP, and OP, respectively. Mean total costs were estimated at €17,858, €20,791, €18,545, and €21,158, respectively. L-DHPCP and OSPP demonstrated the lowest surgical burden and direct healthcare costs, although differences were minor. Therefore, the choice between these four surgical protocols should continue to be based on clinical outcomes, rather than differences in burden and costs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Systematic review of soft-to-hard tissue ratios in orthognathic surgery: 3D analysis-update of scientific evidence. Artificial intelligence-based incisive canal visualization for preventing and detecting post-implant injury, using cone beam computed tomography. Ameloblastic fibroma and BRAF V600E immunohistochemistry staining pattern: case report and review of a rare entity. Classification of skeletal discrepancies by machine learning based on three-dimensional facial scans. Differences in the surgical and financial burden of four protocols for unilateral cleft lip and palate.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1