Unraveling a Major Burden of Orofacial Clefts Analyses: Classification of Cleft Palate Fistulas by Cleft Surgeons

Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate how cleft surgeons classify palatal fistulas. We focused on three different anatomical locations (ie, hard palate, soft palate, junction hard/soft palate) to analyze agreement/disagreement at various anatomical locations. Design: Cross-sectional survey study. Participants: Participants in an international webinar that focused on palatal fistula treatment were included. Intervention: Participants were presented with a survey pre- and post-webinar. Main outcomes: Frequency of used classification systems for classifying oronasal fistulas and the inter-rater reliability of the Pittsburgh classification system. Results: A total of 141 participants completed the questionnaires prior to the webinar and 109 participants completed the survey after the webinar. In total, four classification systems were used (ie, Pittsburgh, Pakistan Comprehensive Fistula Classification [PCFC], anatomical and ‘other’). The Pittsburgh classification was the most commonly used system in all cases. However, Pittsburgh inter-rater reliability was low (κ = 0.136 pre-webinar, and κ = 0.174 post-webinar). Surprisingly, a substantial shift was observed from the anatomical to Pittsburgh classification after the webinar, indicating increased awareness of the usability of the Pittsburgh classification system. Conclusions: This study demonstrates a large heterogeneity with regards to the classification of cleft palate fistulas. Interestingly, a shift was observed from the anatomical to Pittsburgh classification after the webinar. However, the inter-rater reliability for using the Pittsburgh classification was low. Classifying palatal fistulas in a homogenous fashion could enhance comparison of primary palate repair and could improve treatment of palatal fistulas.