Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Plast Surg 2022; 55(01): 087-091
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1744219
Original Article

The Burden of Care in Nasoalveolar Molding Treatment in Cleft Patients

Dominika Magyar 
1   1st Department of Paediatrics, Semmelweis University School of Medicine, Budapest, Hungary
,
Bálint Nemes
2   Department of Paediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Semmelweis University Faculty of Dentistry, Budapest, Hungary
,
Laura Pálvölgyi
1   1st Department of Paediatrics, Semmelweis University School of Medicine, Budapest, Hungary
,
Zoltán Pulay 
3   Private Orthodontic Practice, Stade, Germany
,
Krisztián Nagy
1   1st Department of Paediatrics, Semmelweis University School of Medicine, Budapest, Hungary
4   Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, St John's Hospital Bruges-Oostende, Belgium
5   OMFS-IMPATH KU Research Group, Leuven, Belgium
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives This study, first in Hungary, examined the success of presurgical nasoalveolar molding (NAM) therapy in cleft patients from a caregiver's perspective and revealed factors that can cause inconvenience.

Patients and Methods A survey-based study was performed using a 32-item questionnaire following NAM therapy. The survey was sent to families whose child underwent NAM therapy from 2010 until 2020 at the 1st Department of Paediatrics, Semmelweis University. The questions focused on four main parts: socioeconomic, origin of the cleft, difficulties of therapy, and self-assessment. Fifty-three families received the questionnaire, 17 of them completed it.

Results The mean age was 5 ± 3.7 weeks when NAM therapy started. Fifty-eight percent of the patients were male and 42% female. Patients are living more than 60 km from the cleft center (59%). Patients had to make the journey between their residence and the cleft center ∼10 to 15 times. In most cases, NAM therapy was covered by health insurance (83%). The unilateral cleft and lip palate occurred 58%, while the bilateral were 42%. Thirty-five percent of the patients had an allergic reaction against the adhesive, and 35% were affected by wounds on their lips or noses. The way of feeding was variable. Seventeen percent of the parents were able to breastfeed. In all cases, parents were satisfied with the NAM therapy.

Conclusions The present study highlighted the value of caregivers' role in NAM therapy. The burden of care is acceptable, caregivers have high compliance, and are determined to help the effectiveness of therapy. Limitations of this study include a single-institute data with a small number of cases.

Keywords

NAM - ceft lip and palate - quality of life - treatment evaluation

Ethical Committee Information

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from our university ethics committee.




Publication History

Article published online:
10 March 2022

© 2022. Association of Plastic Surgeons of India. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Alfonso AR, Ramly EP, Kantar RS. et al. What is the burden of care of nasoalveolar molding?. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2020; 57 (09) 1078-1092
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Grayson BH, Santiago PE, Brecht LE, Cutting CB. Presurgical nasoalveolar molding in infants with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1999; 36 (06) 486-498
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Abbott MM, Kokorowski PJ, Meara JG. Timeliness of surgical care in children with special health care needs: delayed palate repair for publicly insured and minority children with cleft palate. J Pediatr Surg 2011; 46 (07) 1319-1324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Barillas I, Dec W, Warren SM, Cutting CB, Grayson BH. Nasoalveolar molding improves long-term nasal symmetry in complete unilateral cleft lip-cleft palate patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 123 (03) 1002-1006
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Grayson BH, Garfinkle JS. Early cleft management: the case for nasoalveolar molding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014; 145 (02) 134-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hopkins EE, Gazza E, Marazita ML. Parental experience caring for cleft lip and palate infants with nasoalveolar moulding. J Adv Nurs 2016; 72 (10) 2413-2422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Levy-Bercowski D, Abreu A, DeLeon E. et al. Complications and solutions in presurgical nasoalveolar molding therapy. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2009; 46 (05) 521-528
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Sischo L, Chan JW, Stein M, Smith C, van Aalst J, Broder HL. Nasoalveolar molding: prevalence of cleft centers offering NAM and who seeks it. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2012; 49 (03) 270-275
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Sischo L, Broder HL, Phillips C. Coping with cleft: a conceptual framework of caregiver responses to nasoalveolar molding. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2015; 52 (06) 640-650
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Dean RA, Wainwright DJ, Doringo IL, Teichgraeber JF, Greives MR. Assessing burden of care in the patient with cleft lip and palate: factors influencing completion and noncompletion of nasoalveolar molding. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2019; 56 (06) 759-765
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 McNEIL CK. Congenital cleft palate; a case of congenital cleft palate which required the fitting of a special appliance. Br Dent J 1948; 84 (07) 137-141
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Latham RA, Kusy RP, Georgiade NG. An extraorally activated expansion appliance for cleft palate infants. Cleft Palate J 1976; 13: 253-261
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Shetye PK, Grayson BH. Nasoalveolar molding treatment protocol in patients with cleft lip and palate. Semin Orthod 2017; 23 (03) 261-267
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Wlodarczyk JR, Wolfswinkel EM, Fahradyan A. et al. Nasoalveolar molding: assessing the burden of care. J Craniofac Surg 2021; 32 (02) 574-577
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Patel PA, Rubin MS, Clouston S. et al. Comparative study of early secondary nasal revisions and costs in patients with clefts treated with and without nasoalveolar molding. J Craniofac Surg 2015; 26 (04) 1229-1233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Raina P, O'Donnell M, Schwellnus H. et al. Caregiving process and caregiver burden: conceptual models to guide research and practice. BMC Pediatr 2004; 4: 1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sischo L, Clouston SA, Phillips C, Broder HL. Caregiver responses to early cleft palate care: a mixed method approach. Health Psychol 2016; 35 (05) 474-482
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar