Detailed Cleft Measurements: A Comparison Between Isolated XXXX and @entity2419 Associated With @entity3384 .

@entity1 @entity1739 @entity2419 @entity3384
OBJECTIVE:     To determine whether there are differences in the anatomical cleft measurements between @entity1 with isolated @entity2419 ( @entity2419 ) with or without Pierre Robin sequence (PR) and those with @entity3384 ( @entity3384 ). DESIGN:     Prospective case series. SETTING:     Tertiary care university-based medical center. @entity1 :     From 1993 to 2012, @entity2419 and @entity3384 @entity1 were prospectively enrolled in a database. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:     Several anatomical cleft parameters were recorded with precise measurements at the time of palatoplasty under general anesthesia. RESULTS:     One hundred twenty-five @entity1 were included in our study: 50 @entity1 in the @entity2419 without PR group, 87 @entity1 in the @entity2419 with or without PR (CPPR) group, and 38 @entity1 in the @entity3384 group. @entity1 in the @entity3384 group had increased values for the following parameters compared to @entity1 with @entity2419 and @entity1 with CPPR: nasopharyngeal depth (P = .02 and P = .01, respectively); cleft width at posterior hard palate border (P < .001 and P < .001); width of the dental arch (P < .001 and P < .001); and total cleft length (P < 01 and P < .001). For cleft width at the soft palate level, there was a significant difference between the @entity2419 and @entity3384 groups (P = .005). We found no statistically significant differences between the groups ( @entity2419 and CPPR, respectively) for the length of the soft palate (P = .74, P = .21) or for the length of the hard palate (P = .19, P = .08). CONCLUSION:     There are significant differences in cleft and palate measurements between @entity3384 and @entity2419 @entity1 that may be useful to predict the occurrence of @entity1739 or other complications.
