Correlation between antenatal ultrasound and postnatal diagnosis in cleft lip or palate: A retrospective study of 44 cases

• Published in: Gynécologie, obstétrique & fertilité obstétrique & fertilité, 2015-12, Vol.43 (12), p.767-772
• Main Authors: Dochez, V, Corre, P, Riteau, A-S, Le Vaillant, C
• Format: Article
• Language: fre
• Subjects: Cleft Lip - diagnostic imaging; Cleft Lip - embryology; Cleft Lip - surgery; Cleft Palate - diagnostic imaging; Cleft Palate - embryology; Cleft Palate - surgery; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Retrospective Studies; Sensitivity and Specificity; Ultrasonography, Prenatal - methods
• ISSN: 1769-6682
• DOI: 10.1016/j.gyobfe.2015.10.009

Anomalies of the maxillofacial development concern 1 for 700 births. About 30% of prenatal diagnoses of isolated primary cleft palate or associated with a cleft of secondary palate will be corrected in postnatal. This retrospective observational study was designed to compare the antenatal data and postnatal diagnosis regarding a series of clefts. All children born between 1 December 2009 and 31 January 2014 in a prenatal diagnostic reference center and having a cleft palate were included. Newborns with an abnormality associated with the cleft were excluded. A comparison was made between the data in the antenatal ultrasound reports and postnatal those described by the surgeon during surgery. Forty-four children were included and three infants were excluded due to associated anomalies. Of those 41 children, 27 children have been screened. Ultrasound and clinical diagnosis was the same for 23 cases (85.2%) and inaccurate for 4 patients (14.8%). In case of primary cleft palate prenatal diagnosis was performed to 19 cases of 21 (90.5%), but only 8 of 20 if only secondary cleft palate (42.1%) including 7 with a Pierre-Robin sequence. Antenatal screening sensitivity of primary and secondary cleft palate increase in recent years with a rate of 85.2% in our series. By contrast, diagnosis of isolated secondary cleft palate seems to be more difficult and 3D ultrasound does not always improve screening performance. Ultrasound 2D seem sufficient for screening of primary and secondary cleft palate. The 3D ultrasound may be useful for a better representation of the cleft for future parents. The same language concerning the classification of the clefts facilitates harmonization of reporting and understanding between professionals. The presence of the maxillofacial surgeon ultrasound room would allow the sonographer to direct its ultrasound accurately or improve its learning curve.