Current Surgical Practices in Cleft Care: Unilateral Cleft Lip Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to report objectively on practice trends in unilateral cleft lip repair in the United States and Canada. This study details current technique preferences, modifications, and adjunct procedure use. METHODS: All surgeons in the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association and the Canadian Society of Plastic Surgeons (n = 1138) were mailed a survey inquiring about their management of unilateral cleft lip. RESULTS: Responses were received from 622 surgeons (55 percent response rate), of whom 269 currently perform cleft surgery. The results arise from this group of 269 active cleft surgeons. Eight-four percent of surgeons perform rotation advancement for complete unilateral cleft lip repair. Nine percent perform a variation of the triangular flap repair. Among those using rotation advancement, 45 percent use a modified technique. The most common modifications are the Noordhoff vermilion flap, the Mohler modification, and the Onizuka triangular advancement flap. Surgeons rarely use more than one technique in their practice, and 86 percent use the same repair for every unilateral cleft lip. Over half of surgeons routinely perform some form of primary nasal correction. Lip adhesion, presurgical orthopedics, nasoalveolar molding, and postoperative nasal stenting are performed by limited numbers of respondents, and the use of these surgical adjuncts is discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Rotation advancement remains the most frequently used technique for unilateral cleft lip repair. However, almost half of those using rotation advancement perform a modification to the original technique. Surgeons should be familiar with both the rotation advancement repair and its common modifications. Among adjunct procedures, only primary nasal correction currently garners widespread use.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".