Are left sided orofacial clefts a different entity to right sided orofacial clefts?
Matt Fell1, Dr Kate Fitzsimons2, Amy Davies3, Dr Daniel Bradley4, Ambika Chadha5, Sophie Butterworth2, Dr Mark Hamilton6, Jibby Medina2, Dr Hussein Wahedally2, Dr Min Hae Park2, Prof Jan Van Der Meulen2, Bruce Richard7, Craig Russell6, Prof Yvonne Wren3, Prof Sarah Lewis3, Associate Prof David Chong8
1Spires Cleft Centre, Oxford, UK, 2Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK, 3University of Bristol, Bristol, UK, 4Operation Smile, Virginia, United States of America, 5Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK, 6Royal Hospital for Children, Glasgow, UK 6, 7Birmingham Women and Children's Hospital, Birmingham, UK, 8Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
Background: The prevalence of left unilateral cleft lip with or without cleft palate (UCL/P) is consistently observed to be twice that of right UCL/P, yet it is not known whether the two represent different underlying phenotypes.
Aims and Objectives: To assess the co-occurrence of sidedness in unilateral cleft lip only (UCLO) and unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) with additional diagnostic features.
Methods: A multimodal approach:
- Scoping review of UCL/P sidedness in literature databases.
- Data linkage of CRANE database to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) to investigate association between UCL/P sidedness and additional congenital anomalies.
- Cleft Collective parental questionnaires from birth and 5-year cohorts to assess association between UCL/P sidedness and additional comorbidities.
Results/Conclusions: The scoping review included 12 studies relating to the co-occurrence of UCL/P sidedness, which focused on dental anomalies, handedness, and congenital anomalies. There was a trend for right UCL/P to represent a more severe phenotype.
The CRANE data linkage included 3,788 children and reported a greater prevalence of additional congenital anomalies for right compared to left UCLP (32% vs 23%, OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.90: p<0.001). There was no evidence for a difference in the prevalence of additional congenital anomalies by sidedness in the UCLO phenotype.
The Cleft Collective data included 447 children and reported increased prevalence of vision anomalies for right compared to left UCLP (11% vs 3%, OR 3.68, 95% CI 1.22-11.13; p=0.021). There was no evidence for a difference in vision by sidedness in the UCLO phenotype.
These findings challenge previously held beliefs that UCL/P sidedness is simply an administrative feature for classification purposes alone and instead suggest that left and right are distinct entities and furthermore are different for UCLO and UCLP phenotypes. Future work to improve understanding requires adequately powered GWAS and DNA sequencing studies.