Objective To investigate the association between the sidedness of orofacial clefts and additional congenital malformations. Design Linkage of a national registry of cleft births to national administrative data of hospital admissions Setting National Health Service, England Participants 2007 children born with cleft lip ± alveolus (CL ± A) and 2724 with cleft lip and palate (CLP) born between 2000 and 2012. Main outcome measure The proportion of children with ICD-10 codes for additional congenital malformations by the sidedness (left, right or bilateral) of orofacial clefts. Results For CL ± A phenotypes, there was no evidence for a difference in the prevalence of additional anomalies between left (22%, reference), right (22%, aOR 1.02, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.28; P = .90) and bilateral clefts (23%, aOR 1.09, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.57; P = .66). For CLP phenotypes, there was evidence of a lower prevalence of additional malformations in left (23%, reference) compared to right (32%, aOR 1.54, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.91; P < .001) and bilateral clefts (33%, aOR 1.64, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.99; P < .001). Conclusions The prevalence of additional congenital malformations was similar across sidedness subtypes with CL ± A phenotypes but was different for sidedness subtypes within CLP cases. These data support the hypothesis that CL ± A has a different underlying aetiology from CLP and that within the CLP phenotype, right sided CLP may lie closer in aetiology to bilateral CLP than it does to left sided CLP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fell et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: