Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_4496_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана
.pdf
5 History ofCleft Treatment
https://t.me/medicina_free
Fig. 5.7 Detailed
description of the
surgical steps to close a
cleft palate (1852)
[operative surgery
illustrated—containing
more than 1900
engravings—including
200 original and 50
colored drawings—with
explanatory text (1852),
from https://
wellcomecollection.org/
works/wugqhykg/
items?canvas=72, Public
Domain]
63
1827 [30]. In 1828, Warren [31] reported a successful closure of the soft palate, which he had
carried out in 1820. Schweckendiek [32] noticed
that the gap in the hard palate decreased in size
following the closure of the soft palate. Thus, the
advisability of the two-stage closure of the palate
was discovered. The great advance in cleft palate
surgery was due to Langenbeck [33], who was
the rst to use a mucoperiosteal ap, which was
separated from the hard palate. This method is
still used today in many places. Velopharyngeal
incompetence was relatively common following

64
https://t.me/medicina_free
U. Meyer
palatoplasty either because there is insufcient
mobility of the soft palate or because the length
of the repaired palate is inadequate to reach the
posterior pharyngeal wall. Veau-Wardill-Kilner
or V–Y pushback palatoplasty [34] is derived
from a modication of the von Langenbeck technique. It can be used to increase the palatal
length. The Veau-Wardill-Kilner pushback palatoplasty can be suitably used for incomplete
clefts of the hard palate. The ap design is similar
to the von Langenbeck palatoplasty. The essence
of this technique is the V-to-Y incision and closure on the hard palate. The pushback technique
has the advantage of lengthening the palate and
repositioning the levator muscle in a more favorable position. In the early twentieth century,
Victor Veau rst described the “cleft muscles”
and advocated the concept of midline levator
palatini muscle re-approximation [12]. He
emphasized the importance of an encircling
suture to pull the levator muscle bundles together,
side to side. The levator muscle repositioning
procedure or intravelar veloplasty during palatoplasty is the most widely practiced method to
achieve velopharyngeal competence. Braithwaite
and Kriens further improved this technique [35,
36]. They emphasized careful dissection of
abnormally positioned levator muscles and the
need to free the levator palatini from the posterior
edge of the hard palate to restore the levator sling
and allow tension-free closure in the midline.
Concepts ofthePremaxilla
andFloor oftheNose
Surgeons like Franco [10], van Roonhuyze [14],
and de la Faye [37] excised the premaxilla in
order to be able to suture the gap in the lip.
Excision was also practiced by Dupuytren [38]
and Rose and Sims [39], who valued the advantages of excision without realizing the damage
done to maxillary growth through this operation.
James Cook of Warwick (1614–1688) was the
rst to warn that the premaxilla should not be
removed because of the danger of interfering
with subsequent growth [40]. Impaired growth
following osteotomy of the premaxilla in infancy
was realized and seen as a major long-time disadvantage of all cleft patients. Tired of discarding
the protruding premaxilla to facilitate the bilateral lip repair and paying a heavy price with a
midface retrusion, surgeons were on the lookout
for an alternative. In 1868, Collis [41] was the
rst to close the oor of the nose with a nasal
mucosal ap. A drawback of this operation was
that the red mucosa was often visible in the nasal
oor. In 1872, a radical method to correct this
protrusion was developed by the Finnish surgeon
Jacob August Estlander. He left the premaxilla
intact and recommended a wedge resection of the
vomer, which allowed the protruding premaxilla
to be pushed back [42]. Faltin, another Finnish
surgeon, published his work in 1935, which recommended that the procedure be abandoned
because it routinely led to serious maxillary
retrusion [43]. Since Faltin published his work in
Swedish, it took 50years for the predominantly
English-speaking plastic surgery community to
get his message through Millard’s [20] exhaustive compendium of twentieth-century surgical
procedures for clefts.
Beneath surgical techniques to resect or correct
the premaxilla, techniques to mold the premaxilla
by applying forces were introduced and became
more popular over time. Millard [20] practiced
repositioning of the premaxilla with an extraoral
fraction mechanism, a technique that can be considered as an orthodontic apparatus. Warren [31]
and Cathrall [44] were the rst to advise extraoral
bandages in order to compress the gap in a bilateral cleft lip and palate. They are therefore thought
to be the pioneers of preoperative orthopedic treatment of the maxilla. Hofmann had previously
described a skullcap with elastic compression as
early as 1686 [45]. In addition to traction, McNeil
[46] introduced treatment with maxillary plates,
which represented a milestone for the modern
orthopedic treatment of the maxilla. Such plates
are in wide use today, included in the orthodontic
technique portfolio for cleft treatment.

5 History ofCleft Treatment
https://t.me/medicina_free
65
Complex Orofacial Clefts
Orofacial clefts are rare congenital anomaly with
an incidence between 1.43 and 4.85 per 100,000
live births. The kind and types of these profound
and complex alterations from normal anatomy
were classied by Tessier [47]. Treatment of rare
facial cleft is complex, and the evaluation of its
long-term results is challenging because of the
low incidence. In comparison to cleft lip and palate abnormalities, the operation technique for the
repair of facial cleft is currently not well established because high variants and low incidence
may occur in facial cleft cases. Surgical treatment to repair orofacial clefts was rst described
in detail by Tessier. His technique and some modication proposed by van der Meulen [48],
Kawamoto and Resnick [49], and Esser [50] are
the most cited surgeries of these kind of deformations. Tessier technique uses upper-eyelid ap to
reconstruct lower eyelid and Z-plasty to repair
midface defect, while Kawamoto technique uses
vertical paranasal ap to reconstruct lower eyelid. In general, treatment of patients with facial
cleft is very individualized, challenging, and
based on the surgeon’s experience and
judgment.
Conclusion
The art of cleft lip and palate repair has enjoyed
considerable development over many years.
Modern cleft management investigates today the
presence of problems, which involve maxillary
growth, speech, hearing, and esthetics in dependence of the therapeutic regimen. There are still no
standard protocols to address the issues of ideal
timing and kind of surgery for cleft lip and palate
repair to attain optimal function and esthetics and
to avoid abnormal scar-related growth effects.
Whereas most of these problems can be satisfactory solved in unilateral cleft patients, bilateral
cleft patients still have a burden of disease. In spite
of great advances, no one method of treatment has
as yet been universally accepted. Whether one specic method of treatment is better than another can
only be judged by a long- time documentation of
treatment-dependent functional and phenotype
outcomes on the basis of a differentiated and comparable cleft classication.
References
1. Bill J, Proff P, Bayerlein T, Weingaertner J, Fanghanel
J, Reuther J. Treatment of patients with cleft lip,
alveolus and palate—a short outline of history
and current interdisciplinary treatment approach. J
Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2006;34:17–21.
2. Converse JM, Hogan VM, McCarthy JG. Cleft lip
and palate. In: Converse JM, editor. Reconstructive
plastic surgery. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1977.
p.1930.
3. Skoog T.A head from ancient Corinth. Scand J Plast
Reconstr Surg. 1969;3:49–53.
4. Bhattacharya S, Khanna V, Kohli R. Cleft lip: the
historical perspective. Indian J Plast Surg Suppl.
2009;1(42):4–8.
5. Dorrance GM. The operative story of cleft palate.
Philadelphia: Saunders; 1933.
6. Magnus O. (Archibiscopus Upsaliensis) Historia
de gentibus septentrionalibus. Roma: De Leporum
Varietate; 1535.
7. Perko M.The history of treatment of cleft lip and palate. Prog Pediatr Surg. 1986;20:238–51.
8. Fabricius ab Aquapendente G. De Formatio Fetu.
Pasquali, Padua: 1600.
9. Pare A.Les oeuvres de M Ambroise Pare. Paris: Chez
Gabriel Buon; 1575.
10. Franco P.Traite des Hernies. Lyons: Thibauld Payan;
1561.
11. Mirault G. Deux lettres sur l'operation du becdelievre. J Chir. 1844;2:257.
12. Veau V, de Lievre B.Hypothese sur la malformation
initiale. Ann Anat Pathol Paris. 1935;12:389.
13. Dieffenbach JF.Memoires sur quelque nouvelle methods obtenir la gueisondes ouvertures contre nature a
l'extremite anterieure libre de l'urethre chez l'homme.
Gaz Med Paris. 1836;802:1.
14. van Roonhuysen H. Historischer heil-curen in zwei
theil verfasste. Nurnberg: Michael und Johann
Freidrich Endtern; 1674.
15. Hagerdon WH. Operation for harelip with zigzag
suture. Zentralbl Chir. 1892;19:281.
16. Blair VP, Brown JB.Mirault operation for single harelip. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1930;51:81.
17. Le Mesurier AB.A method of cutting and suturing the
lip in the treatment of complete unilateral clefts. Plast
Reconstr Surg. 1949;4:1–8.
18. Tennison CW.The repair of unilateral cleft lip by the
stencil method. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1952;9:115.
19. Randall P. Triangular ap operation for unilateral
clefts of the lip. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1959;23:331.
20. Millard RC. Cleft craft, vol. 1.3. Boston: Little
Brown; 1976.

66
https://t.me/medicina_free
U. Meyer
21. Pfeifer G.Uber ein entwicklungsgeschichtlich begriindetes Verfahren des Verschlusses von Lippenspalten.
Dtsch Zahn Mund Kieferkl. 1970;54:69.
22. Markus AF, Delaire J. Functional primary closure of cleft lip. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg.
1993;31(5):281–91.
23. Blair OR. History of cleft lip and palate treatment.
In: Grab, etal., editors. Cleft lip and palate. Boston:
Little, Brown and Co; 1971.
24. Robert. Traite des principaux objets de medecine avec
un sommaire de la plupart des theses soutenues aux
ecoles de Paris, depuio 1762 jusqu'a 1746, vol. 1.
Paris: Lacombe; 1766. p.8.
25. Desault PJ, Bichat X.Sur l'operation du bec-de-lievre.
In: Oeuvres chirurgicales ou expose de la doctrine et
de la pratique, vol. 2. Paris: Mequignon; 1798.
26. von Graefe C.Die Gaumennaht—ein neu entdecktes
Mittel gegen angeborene Fehler der Sprache. J Chir
Augenheilkd. 1820;1:1.
27. Roux PJ.Observation sur une division congenitale du
voile du palais et de la luette, guerie au moyen d'une
operation analogue a celle du bec-de-lievre. J Univ
Sci Med. 1819;15:356.
28. Dieffenbach JF. Beitriige zur Gaumennaht. Ann
Heilkd. 1928;10:322.
29. Velpeau AALM.New elements of operative surgery,
vol. 1. Langley: NewYork; 1845. p.652.
30. Krimer W.Heilung eines betriichtlichen Wolfrachens.
Chir Augenheilkd. 1827;10:625.
31. Warren JC.On an operation for the cure of natural ssure of the soft palate. Am J Med Sci. 1828;1:1.
32. Schweckendiek H. Zur Frage der Friih- und
Spatoperationen der angeborenen Lippen- KieferGaumen- Spalten. Z Laryngol Rhinol. 1951;30:51.
33. von Langenbeck B. Operation der angeborenen
totalen Spaltung des harten Gaumens nach einer
neuen Methode. Dtsch Klin. 1861;8:231.
34. Cronin TD. Method of preventing raw area on the
nasal surface of the hard palate in push-back surgery.
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1957;20:474–84.
35. Braithwaite F, Maurice DG. The importance of the
levator palatini muscle in cleft palate closure. Br J
Plast Surg. 1968;21:60–2.
36. Kriens O.An anatomical approach to veloplasty. Plast
Reconstr Surg. 1969;43:29–41.
37. de la Faye G. Memoires de I-Academie Royale de.
Academie Royale de Chirurgie. 1743;1:605.
38. Dupuytren G.Leçons orales de clinique chirurgicale
faite a l’Hotel-Dieu de Paris, vol. 1. Paris: Bailliere;
1832.
39. Rose W, Sims N. Harelip and cleft palate. London:
Lewis; 1891.
40. Cooke J. Mellicium chirurgiae or the marrow of
chirurgery. With the anatomy of human bodies. 4th
ed. London: London Publishing; 1693. p.195.
41. Collis MH.The esthetic treatment of harelip. Dublin J
Med Sci. 1868;45:392.
42. Estlander JA.Eine method aus der einen lippe substanzverluste der anderen zu ersetzen. Arch Klin Chir.
1872;14:622.
43. Faltin R.History of plastic surgery in Finland. Finsk
Lak Sallsk Handl. 1937;80:97.
44. Cathrall I. A case of double hair-lip. Med Record.
1819;2:372.
45. Hofmann JP.De labiis leporinis: von Hasenscharten.
Heidelberg: Bergmann; 1686.
46. McNeil CK.Orthodontic procedures in the treatment
of congenital cleft palate. Dent Rec. 1950;79:126.
47. Tessier P.Anatomical classication of facial, craniofacial and latero-facial clefts. J Maxillofac Surg.
1976;4(2):69–92.
48. Van der Meulen JCH. Facial clefts. World J Surg.
1989;13(4):373–83.
49. Resnick JI, Kawamoto HK Jr. Rare craniofacial
clefts: Tessier no. 4 clefts. Plast Reconstr Surg.
1990;85(6):843–9.
50. Hoopmann M, Sonek J, Esser T, Bilardo CM, Wagner
P, Abele H, Kagan KO. Frontal space distance in
facial clefts and retrognathia at 11–13 weeks’ gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;48(2):171–6.

Classication ofOrofacial Clefts
https://t.me/medicina_free
RüdigerM.Zimmerer, AnnaKatharinaSander,
andBerndLethaus
6
Introduction
Inaccurate and inconsistent classication of orofacial clefts continues to be a challenge today.
Arguably, the need for a universal, simple, and
practical classication scheme has never been
greater [1]. However, malformations of the orofacial complex are phenotypically diverse, making
classication difcult.
Research and treatment of clefts of the lip, alveolus, and palate require exact, reliable, and reproducible terminology and documentation [2].
Depending on denotations and classication
systems used, important anatomical structures
that are involved in orofacial clefts and that
require treatment might disappear. Particularly,
the simplied “cleft lip and palate (CL/P)”
nomenclature does not represent or address
important affected anatomical regions including
the alveolar process, soft palate, vomer, and nose.
It is difcult to trace the etymologic history of
CL/P.The condition is as old as humanity itself
and has various classication systems along with
the evolution of ideas and their historical backgrounds, as well as the major advantages and disadvantages of the most important classication
systems.
In chronological order, this chapter includes
the schemes described by Förster (1861), Davis
and Ritchie (1922), Veau (1931), Fogh-Andersen
(1943), Kernahan and Stark (1958), Harkins etal.
(1962), Pfeifer (1963), J. Koch (1966), and
Kriens (1989); the latest update of the LAHSN
classication system put forth by H.Koch (2003);
and a more recent approach described by Allori
and his group (2016) (Table6.1).
R. M. Zimmerer (*) · A. K. Sander · B. Lethaus
Clinic for Maxillofacial and Plastic Facial Surgery,
University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
e-mail: ruediger.zimmerer@medizin.uni-leipzig.de;
anna.sander@medizin.uni-leipzig.de;
bernd.lethaus@medizin.uni-leipzig.de
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023
U. Meyer (ed.), Fundamentals of Craniofacial Malformations,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28069-6_6
67

68
https://t.me/medicina_free
Table 6.1 Overview of classication systems of orofacial clefts, modied and extended according to Hillig [3]
Year of
publication Authors Title
1839–1842 von Ammon, F.A. Die angeborenen chirurgischen Krankheiten des Menschen
(German) [4]
1861 Förster, A. Die Missbildungen des Menschen (German) [5]
1922 Davis, J.S. and H.P.
Ritchie
1923/1924 Brophy, T.W. Cleft lip and palate [7]
1931 Veau, V. Division Palatine: Anatomie–Chirurgie Phonétique (French) [8]
1942 Fogh- Andersen, P. Inheritance of harelip and cleft palate [9]
1953 Pruzansky, S. Description, classication, and analysis of unoperated clefts of the
1958 Kernahan, D.A., and
R.B. Stark
1960/62 Harkins, C.S., etal. A classication of cleft lip and cleft palate [12]
1962 Vilar-Sancho, B. A proposed new international classication of congenital cleft lip
1958/1964 Pfeifer, G. Classication of clefts of lip, alveolus, and palate. Discussion by
1966 Koch, J. (Thallwitzer
Modell)
1966 Vilar-Sancho, B. Discussion by invitation. In: Schuchardt K, ed. Treatment of Patients
1969 Santiago, A. Classication of cleft lip and palate for machine record coding [17]
1971 Kernahan, D.A. The striped Y–A symbolic classication for cleft lip and palate [18]
1972 Elsahy, N.I. The modied striped Y–A systematic classication for cleft lip and
1988 Jensen, B.L., etal. Cleft lip and palate in Denmark, 1976–1981: epidemiology,
1985/1989 Kriens, O. (LAHSHAL
system)
1990 Noordhoff, M.S., etal. Multidisciplinary management of cleft lip and palate in Taiwan [22]
1991 Friedmann, H.I., etal. Symbolic representation of cleft lip and palate [23]
1995 Koch, J. Cleft malformation of lip, alveolus, hard and soft palate, and nose
2003 Koch, H., etal. Facial clefts and their coding with LAHS nomenclature [2]
2016 Allori, C. etal. Classication of cleft lip and palate: then and now [1]
Classication of congenital clefts of the lip and the palate: with a
suggestion for recording these cases [6]
lip and palate [10]
A new classication for cleft lip and cleft palate [11]
and cleft palate [13]
invitation. In: Schuchardt K, ed. Treatment of Patients with Clefts of
Lip, Alveolus and Palate [14]
Zur Nomenklatur der Lippen-Kiefer-Gaumen- Segel-Spalten [15]
with Clefts of Lip, Alveolus and Palate [16]
palate [19]
variability, and early somatic development [20]
A concise documentation system for cleft lip, alveolus, and palate
diagnoses [21]
(LAHSN)—a critical view of the terminology, the diagnosis and
gradation as a basis for documentation and therapy [24]
R. M. Zimmerer et al.
Historical andAnatomical
Considerations
In 1861, the German pathologist August Förster
from Würzburg rst attempted to describe congenital malformations of the orofacial complex
in his book Die Missbildungen des Menschen. He
Cheilo Gnatho Urano Staphylo Skisis
Labium Alveolus/maxilla Palatum Velum Fissum
Lip Palate Cleft
tried to systemically classify malformations of
the lip, alveolar process (alveolus), palate, and
face comprehensively [5]. At the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth
century, the nomenclature of cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) malformations was predominantly
described in Greek and Latin:

6 Classication ofOrofacial Clefts
https://t.me/medicina_free
69
During the process of translation into different
languages, those terms became imprecise because
some anatomical structures were omitted or subclassied anatomically incorrectly. Instead of
malformation or deformity, the misleading term
“cleft” prevailed, describing a static state instead
of the actual dynamic pathological developmental process. In English-speaking countries, only
“cleft lip” and/or “palate” were differentiated
from each other while malformations of the
velum (soft palate), alveolar process (alveolus),
nose, and vomer were not covered.
The imprecise diagnosis developed due to different views on the anatomical differentiation
between the premaxilla, including both alveolar
processes, and the maxilla with both of their alveolar processes. This also applied to malformations of the hard palate, soft palate (velum), and
pharynx. In both cases, the exact terms and anatomical boundaries were not considered.
According to the recent literature, the hard
palate consists of [25]
• The right and left premaxilla, including the
alveolar process
• The palatine process of the right and left max-
illa, including the alveolar process
• The horizontal plate (lamina) of the right and
left palatine bones
When the union or fusion of both palatine processes and the vomer fails to occur, complete and
incomplete palatine malformations arise, respectively. The later in the embryonal course the fusion
occurs, the more microformal or submucosal malformations of the palate, vomer, and velum (soft
palate) occur. Absent fusion of the left and right
velum (soft palate) and uvula results in a soft cleft
palate. To date, isolated malformations of the uvula
are not considered a separate entity. They are
dened as a nonunion of the posterior third of the
velum and are thus the least severe malformation of
the secondary palate. In Anglo-America, “cleft palate” usually includes only malformations that occur
posterior/dorsal to the transverse palatine suture
(sutura palatina transversa). This includes only the
horizontal plate of the palatine bone (lamina hori-
zontalis ossis palatini) in the posterior third of the
hard palate and the left and right velum, respectively. Malformations of the alveolar process of the
left and right maxilla are subsumed into the group
of total cleft lip malformations. Isolated malformations of the lip without the alveolar process are considered subtotal cleft lips.
In contrast, in Europe, the absent fusion of the
lip soft tissues of both maxillary processes and
the premaxilla denes total cleft lip malforma-
tion. Isolated osseous nonunion of the maxillary
processes and the premaxilla is independently
classied as alveolar cleft malformations. If
both the soft tissues of the lip and alveolar bone
do not fuse during development, cleft lip and
alveolar malformations arise.
Anatomical andMorphological
Perspectives
Davis andRitchie (1922)
John Staige Davis from Baltimore and Harry
P.Ritchie from St. Paul developed and published
an anatomical classication system in 1922 [6].
Besides their classication system, the authors
recommended a change in the wording, viz.:
It is now generally accepted, by those who have given
thought to the matter, that the term ‘harelip’ should be
discarded, and that the malformation thus named
should be called ‘congenital cleft of the lip’ [6].
In the Davis and Ritchie classication, the alveolar process was dened as the line of division for
classifying group I, pre-alveolar (process) cleft;
group II, post-alveolar (process) cleft; and group
III, alveolar (process) cleft. Furthermore, the
authors differentiated among bilateral, unilateral,
and median occurrences, as well as between complete and incomplete defects:
Group I.Pre- alveolar (process) cleft (lip cleft/
normal alveolar process)
1. Unilateral, right/left, complete/incomplete
2. Bilateral, right: complete/incomplete, left:
complete/incomplete
3. Median (rare), complete/incomplete
Cleft of the palate may be associated with
this group.

70
https://t.me/medicina_free
R. M. Zimmerer et al.
In the post-alveolar group, the hard and soft
palates were longitudinally triparted to arrive at a
more detailed recording of the malformation, and
the extent was described in thirds (1/3, 2/3, 3/3).
Group II.Post- alveolar (process) cleft (palate
cleft, normal alveolar process)
1. Soft palate (the uvula only or entire soft palate
may be cleft)
2. Hard palate (may be notch only, or cleft may
extend to the anterior palatine foramen, in
addition to the soft palate)
Cleft of the lip may be associated with this
group
The authors stated that patients belonging to
group III usually showed associated clefts of the
lip, alveolar process, and palate of many different
anatomical degrees and variations. They concluded that any patient with a normal alveolar
process should be assigned to either group I or II
or both groups. Any patient with involvement of
the alveolar process, however, was assigned to
group III.
4. Clefts of the soft and hard palates, extending
bilaterally through the alveolus
Veau emphasized his classication with
graphical drawings. While Veau discussed the
most intricate of anatomical ndings in Division
Palatine, he purposefully chose to exclude “confounding” details (such as severity) from the
classication system itself, preferring simple
groupings [1].
In 1937, Veau recommended, together with
Politzer and Fleischmann, classifying malformations according to their embryonic background
and included the following subtypes [26]:
1. Malformations of the primary embryological
palate
2. Malformations of the secondary embryologi-
cal palate
3. Malformations of the primary and secondary
embryological palates
To date, this classication remains one of the
most frequently used in both clinical practice and
research.
Group III. Alveolar (process) cleft (cleft follows the incisor sutures)
1. Unilateral, right: complete/incomplete, left:
complete/incomplete
2. Bilateral, right: complete/incomplete, left:
complete/incomplete
3. Median (rare), complete/incomplete
Clefts of the lip and palate are usually
associated with this group.
Veau (1937)
A few years after Davis and Ritchie, Victor Veau
from France classied malformations of the lip
and palate into four groups [8, 24]:
1. Clefts of the soft palate
2. Clefts of the soft and hard palates, up to the
incisive foramen
3. Clefts of the soft and hard palates, extending
unilaterally through the alveolus
Embryological Perspectives
Fogh-Andersen (1942)
A criticism of the Davis and Ritchie classication
was that using the alveolar process as the dividing line between the pre-alveolar clefts and postalveolar clefts was arbitrary. Poul Fogh-Andersen
of Copenhagen considered the incisive foramen,
rather than the alveolar process, to be a better
dividing line from an embryological perspective
[1, 9]. In his monograph, Inheritance of Harelip
and Cleft Palate (1942), Fogh-Andersen proposed an alternative to the Davis and Ritchie
classication and proposed an embryological
classication very similar to that proposed by
Veau. However, in contrast to Veau, he modied
the order upon nding out that malformations of
the primary embryological palate often extend
into the secondary embryological palate [9]. The
original nomenclature is presented in italics and
in parentheses:

6 Classication ofOrofacial Clefts
https://t.me/medicina_free
71
1. Cleft malformations of the lip (harelip (single
or double))
2. Cleft malformations of the lip and palate
(harelip with cleft palate)
3. Cleft malformations of the palate (isolated
cleft palate)
4. Rare atypical clefts, such as median cleft lip
Fogh-Andersen also included a classication
of the severity of the malformation in thirds: 1/3,
microform; 2/3, subtotal; and 3/3, total.
Kernahan andStark (1958)
In 1958, Desmond A. Kernahan and Richard
B.Stark from NewYork systematically subclassied the already existing embryological classications suggested by Veau and his group.
Kernahan and Stark both strongly advocated a
cleft classication system based on developmental anatomy [11].
Renement: Harkins (1962)
andtheInternational Acceptance
(1967)
In 1962, Harkins, as well as the American Cleft
Palate Association, accepted this classication
[12]. By integrating rare facial clefts, the classication was expanded but became unclear as a
result [24]. Finally, in 1967, the International
Confederation for Plastic and Reconstructive
Surgery recommended the worldwide usage of
the embryologically based classication proposed by Kernahan and Stark [11, 24].
Embryological Perspectives
withAnatomical Subdivisions
malformations of the cleft lip, alveolus, hard palate, and velum (soft palate). By blacking the corresponding elds, the extent of the malformation
was documented. Partial or subtotal malformations were hatched. However, this system did not
prevail [14].
Josef Koch (1961)
In 1961, Josef A.M. Koch from Thallwitz in former Eastern Germany adopted Pfeifer’s Pentagon
[27]. To provide uniformity and international
usability, he replaced velum (V) with soft palate
(S) and created the L-A-P-S code [28].
Sagittal Extent
To classify the sagittal extent, Koch adopted the
approach proposed by Davis and Ritchie in 1942
by using the numbers 1 (microform), 2 (subtotal),
and 3 (total) (Table6.2).
Submucous clefts were initially indicated with
lower cases, later with Roman numerals (I, II,
and III), and nally with Arabic numbers (1, 2,
and 3) for the involvement of the liform, narrow,
and wide mucosal bridges.
Transverse Extent
Koch proposed documentation of the transverse
extent with capital letters (Table6.3).
At the conference “Clefts of Lip, Alveolus and
Palate” held in Maribor, Slovenia, in 1968, Vilar-
Table 6.2 Sagittal dimensions and severity of malformation proposed by Josef Koch
Description of sagittal dimension
(ventral-dorsal) Grade
Minor Microform 1
Partial Incomplete 2
Total Complete 3
Pfeifer (1958)
Gerhard Pfeifer from Tübingen and later
Hamburg, Germany, developed the rst schematic graphical representation and was the rst to
introduce a punch card system for documenting
Table 6.3 Transverse dimensions of the lip, alveolus,
and soft and hard palate malformations proposed by Josef
Koch
Affected side Code
Bilateral B
Left L
Right R

72
Cle
unilateral bilateral
hard and so p. so p.
https://t.me/medicina_free
R. M. Zimmerer et al.
Cle lip
Cle lip and alveolus
Cle lip, alveolus and palate
palate
Fig. 6.1 Graphical view of the main aspects of Kriens’ classication ideas. (Source: Author: Schwing, at the Germanlanguage Wikipedia, Wiki commons)
Sancho suggested the use of Greek nomenclature; however, his proposal did not prevail.
Instead, there was an international consensus on
the original proposal by Koch, to adopt the
Anglo-American terminology with the symbols
for lip (L), alveolus (A), hard (H) palate, and soft
lip
alveolus
hard palate
so palate
lip
alveolus
hard palate
so palate
lip
alveolus
hard palate
so palate
hard palate
so palate
prising elds that represent the different anatomical regions. Using a numbering scheme, it was
possible to differentiate the affected side (transverse extent) of malformations of the primary
palate, but not the transverse extent of malforma-
tions of the secondary palate.
(S) palate introduced in the LAHS code [2].
Later, in 1969, Koch rotated the Pentagon horizontally and the LAHS code was introduced [27].
Elsahy (1972)
Figure 6.1 gives a graphical view on the main
aspects of the LAHS code.
Kriens later used Koch’s proposal and the
international consensus to develop the
LAHSHAL code in 1987, which was published
in 1989 [21].
In 1972, Nabil Elsahy modied and augmented
the “Y-shape” and included little triangles (nos. 1
and 5) above the elds representing the lip (nos.
2 and 6) to document malformations involving
the nostrils and nasal oor. Due to those additional
triangles, the numbering changed. In the modied striped Y, squares 9 and 10 represent the hard
Kernahan (1971)
palate and are bordered by two lines on either
side (indicating the hard palate), while square 11
In 1971, again, Desmond Kernahan published his
graphical documentation for malformations of
the lip, alveolus, and hard and soft palates [18].
He depicted malformations of the primary and
secondary palates by a Y-shaped graphic com-
represents the soft palate and is bordered by one
line on either side. Arrows in those areas indi-
cated the direction of deviation of the hard palate.
The pharynx (no. 12) and premaxilla (no. 13)
were also included in this scheme [19].
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
