Lefort I Osteotomy With and Without Osteogenic Distraction in Cleft Lip and Palate Patients: Experience at Hospital Universitario Infantil De San José

INTRODUCTION: Cleft lip and cleft palate (CLP) are congenital diseases that lead to several secondary craniofacial anomalies, such as hypoplasia of the middle third of the face, which can be treated with different surgical techniques to help improve functional and esthetic alterations associated with the maxilla. This article reports the results of patients managed with LeFort I osteotomy in the same craniofacial surgery center for 10 years. OBJECTIVE: To determine the postoperative results regarding recurrence rates, malocclusion, and speech status after surgical treatment, in patients with retrusion of the midface with CLP, who underwent LeFort I osteotomy with or without osteogenic distraction (OD). METHODS: A descriptive cohort study was performed at the Hospital Infantil Universitario de San José in Bogotá, Colombia, between 2010 and 2020, evaluating 38 patients with CLP who met the inclusion criteria, all managed by LeFort I osteotomy with and without OD. The authors reported the sociodemographic information, as well as data related to speech before and after surgery, recurrence, complications, and cephalometric characteristics. The recurrence of the patients was described at 6 and 12 months after the surgical procedure. RESULTS: A total of 43 patients met the inclusion criteria, of which 20 patients were managed with conventional LeFort I osteotomy, and 23 with LeFort I osteotomy with OD; 5 patients were excluded due to lack of data in the medical records, with a final sample of 38 patients. The distribution based on sex was: 57.8% men and 42.1% women. Regarding laterality, we have 7 patients with right CLP (18.42%), 11 patients with left CLP (28.9%), and 20 patients with bilateral CLP (52.63%), 100% of patients with a class III bite in Angle's classification. In group 1 (OD), 55% of the patients did not present changes in speech before surgery, 30% presented improvement in speech, and 15% worsened it. In group 2 (conventional advancement), 66% of the patients did not present changes in speech, 5.5% presented improvement, and 27.7% presented worsening of speech based on the preoperative condition, with a clinical recurrence at 6 months of 15% for group 1 and of 33% for group 2, and at 1 year of 20% for group 1 and 16% for group 2. CONCLUSIONS: Osteogenic distraction is a safe method that can be applied in patients with CLP depending on the clinical characteristics. According to what is described in the literature, those patients who require advancement of up to 6 mm treated without OD have obtained good results, showing esthetic improvement by increasing the projection of the middle third of the face, without worsening of velopharyngeal insufficiency and achieving an adequate occlusal class (Angle I) in the immediate postoperative period or after the postoperative orthodontic management. However, in patients who require advances ≥7 mm, it is clear that OD is the best option, given its association with a lower recurrence rate, minimal changes in the speech, achieving occlusion edge-to-edge at the end of the distraction or Angle's class I, which is corroborated by the results obtained in this study.