Добавил:
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
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
36 Мб
Скачать
5 History ofCleft 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 insufcient 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 modication 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 ofthePremaxilla andFloor oftheNose
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 50years 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 ofCleft 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 classied 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 mod­ication 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 spe­cic 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 classication.
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, etal., 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: NewYork; 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. Mellicium 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 classication 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.
Classication ofOrofacial Clefts
https://t.me/medicina_free
RüdigerM.Zimmerer, AnnaKatharinaSander, andBerndLethaus
6
Introduction
Inaccurate and inconsistent classication of oro­facial clefts continues to be a challenge today. Arguably, the need for a universal, simple, and practical classication scheme has never been greater [1]. However, malformations of the orofa­cial complex are phenotypically diverse, making classication difcult.
Research and treatment of clefts of the lip, alveo­lus, and palate require exact, reliable, and repro­ducible terminology and documentation [2].
Depending on denotations and classication systems used, important anatomical structures that are involved in orofacial clefts and that require treatment might disappear. Particularly, the simplied “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 difcult to trace the etymologic history of CL/P.The condition is as old as humanity itself and has various classication systems along with the evolution of ideas and their historical back­grounds, as well as the major advantages and dis­advantages of the most important classication 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 etal. (1962), Pfeifer (1963), J. Koch (1966), and Kriens (1989); the latest update of the LAHSN classication system put forth by H.Koch (2003); and a more recent approach described by Allori and his group (2016) (Table6.1).
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 classication systems of orofacial clefts, modied 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, classication, and analysis of unoperated clefts of the
1958 Kernahan, D.A., and
R.B. Stark 1960/62 Harkins, C.S., etal. A classication of cleft lip and cleft palate [12] 1962 Vilar-Sancho, B. A proposed new international classication of congenital cleft lip
1958/1964 Pfeifer, G. Classication 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. Classication of cleft lip and palate for machine record coding [17] 1971 Kernahan, D.A. The striped Y–A symbolic classication for cleft lip and palate [18] 1972 Elsahy, N.I. The modied striped Y–A systematic classication for cleft lip and
1988 Jensen, B.L., etal. Cleft lip and palate in Denmark, 1976–1981: epidemiology,
1985/1989 Kriens, O. (LAHSHAL
system) 1990 Noordhoff, M.S., etal. Multidisciplinary management of cleft lip and palate in Taiwan [22] 1991 Friedmann, H.I., etal. 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., etal. Facial clefts and their coding with LAHS nomenclature [2] 2016 Allori, C. etal. Classication of cleft lip and palate: then and now [1]
Classication of congenital clefts of the lip and the palate: with a suggestion for recording these cases [6]
lip and palate [10] A new classication 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 andAnatomical 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 Classication ofOrofacial 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 sub­classied 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 dened 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 denes total cleft lip malforma- tion. Isolated osseous nonunion of the maxillary processes and the premaxilla is independently classied 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 andMorphological Perspectives
Davis andRitchie (1922)
John Staige Davis from Baltimore and Harry P.Ritchie from St. Paul developed and published an anatomical classication system in 1922 [6]. Besides their classication 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 classication, the alve­olar process was dened 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 classication 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 classication 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 classication 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 classied 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 classication 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 classication and proposed an embryological classication very similar to that proposed by Veau. However, in contrast to Veau, he modied 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 Classication ofOrofacial 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 classication
of the severity of the malformation in thirds: 1/3, microform; 2/3, subtotal; and 3/3, total.
Kernahan andStark (1958)
In 1958, Desmond A. Kernahan and Richard B.Stark from NewYork systematically subclas­sied the already existing embryological classi­cations suggested by Veau and his group. Kernahan and Stark both strongly advocated a cleft classication system based on developmen­tal anatomy [11].
Renement: Harkins (1962) andtheInternational Acceptance (1967)
In 1962, Harkins, as well as the American Cleft Palate Association, accepted this classication [12]. By integrating rare facial clefts, the classi­cation 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 classication pro­posed by Kernahan and Stark [11, 24].
Embryological Perspectives withAnatomical 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) (Table6.2).
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 (Table6.3).
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’ classication 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 modied 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 modi­ed 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].