Skip to content

Range and timing of surgery and surgical sequences used in primary repair of complete unilateral cleft lip and palate: The Cleft Care UK Study

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Original languageEnglish
Number of pages8
JournalOrthodontics and Craniofacial Research
Early online date30 Oct 2019
DateAccepted/In press - 24 Oct 2019
DateE-pub ahead of print (current) - 30 Oct 2019


OBJECTS: To describe the range of surgery used to repair the lip and palate in the UK with specific interest in the sequence/timing used in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (cUCLP).

SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: The Cleft Care UK study, a cross-sectional study of 268 5-year-olds, born from 2005-07, with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate.

MATERIALS & METHODS: Information on surgery was extracted from medical notes by surgeons during research clinics and transcribed onto a standardised questionnaire.

RESULTS: Surgical data were available for 251 (94%) children from all cleft centres in the UK (n = 18). Over a two-year period, 32 surgeons used 10 different surgical sequences in primary repair of the cleft lip and palate. The most frequently used sequence was repair of cleft lip and anterior hard palate followed by repair of posterior hard palate and soft palate (70%). Four surgical sequences were used only once. Most surgeons had a preferred sequence, but 38% (11/29) used more than one sequence during the study period. The timing of repair of the lip, the hard palate and the soft palate varied with surgical sequence, and also between surgeons, even adjusting for the different sequences used.

CONCLUSION: Despite centralisation of cleft services in the UK, there remains considerable variation in both the sequence and timing of surgical repair of cleft lip and palate in infancy. Further work is required to understand whether these factors are associated with differences in outcome.

    Research areas

  • cleft, cleft lip and palate, surgery, surgical workload



  • Full-text PDF (accepted author manuscript)

    Rights statement: This is the author accepted manuscript (AAM). The final published version (version of record) is available online via Wiley at Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.

    Accepted author manuscript, 356 KB, PDF document

    Embargo ends: 30/10/20

    Request copy


View research connections

Related faculties, schools or groups