Retrospective cohort study reveals neighborhood disadvantage affects postoperative outcomes and follow-up care in cleft palate patients, suggesting need for enhanced support.
Objective To assess the relationship between neighborhood-level social disadvantage, as measured by Area Deprivation Index (ADI) and Childhood Opportunity Index (COI), and postoperative outcomes and follow-up care after primary or secondary cleft palate repair. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Academic tertiary care center. Patients Pediatric patients with cleft palate with or without cleft lip (CP ± L). Interventions Primary palatoplasty, revision palatoplasty, or closure of oronasal fistula. Main outcome measures Postoperative complications and clinic follow-up adherence. Results A total of 244 patients were included in the study. Among all patients, there was only a moderate correlation between patients’ ADI and COI quintiles (R 2 = 0.465, P < .001). In patients undergoing primary palatoplasty, greater ADI neighborhood deprivation was significantly associated with a greater number of no-show ( P = .011) and cancelled ( P = .025) clinic appointments. In patients undergoing revision palatoplasty, greater ADI neighborhood deprivation was significantly associated with higher rates of postoperative complications ( P = .016) and a greater number of no-show clinic appointments ( P = .036). Greater COI disadvantage was associated with significantly higher rates of hospital readmission ( P = .049) and fewer cancelled clinic appointments ( P = .049) in revision palatoplasties. Neighborhood disadvantage was not predictive of any oronasal fistula repair postoperative outcomes, follow-up adherence, or patient characteristics at surgery. Conclusions Neighborhood-level social disadvantage indices are predictive of suboptimal surgical outcomes and follow-up adherence in patients undergoing cleft palate surgery and could be used to identify patients who may benefit from additional clinic outreach and support.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: