Page 3 - Behind the Smile - Spring 2014

The Americleft Project:

An LCPC-Led Multi-Center Comparison

of Treatment Outcomes

How do we know that our team about the relative efectiveness comparable initiatives in Japan,

is ofering the best treatment of the various approaches. With Australia/New Zealand and

available? How do we assess full support from the American Mexico. The expanding global

the beneits of the treatments
Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Asso- efort has resulted in the

we chose to ofer to our patients ciation the LCPC, the University presentation of 23 scientiic

compared to alternative methods of Toronto, University of Indiana, papers at major national and

available? How do these ex- Ohio State University, and Dal- international professional meet-

pected beneits compare to the housie University in Halifax, Nova ings and numerous publications.

burdens and risks patients and Scotia collaborated and for the
Identiication of “best practices”
their families take on inancially, irst time the long term outcomes
in the care of patients with clefts
socially, and personally when from these diferent treatment
and other craniofacial anomalies
certain treatments are chosen approaches were scientiically

over others?
evaluated and compared.

Such questions have not had
The success of the
a ready answer until recently. From the success of that initial

Over 15 years ago there were meeting, the “Americleft Proj- Americleft Project is now

over 200 cleft/craniofacial ect” has continued and is now

centers delivering over 150 entering its 9th year. The LCPC recognized worldwide.

diferent treatment protocols for remains the organizing center

the management of the infant although Americleft has ex-

born with cleft lip and palate. The panded its outcome comparison
is a slow and complicated
lack of agreement over infant studies so that now intercenter
comparison of outcomes in or- process. The beneits to patients
treatment was due to the ab-
thodontics, speech, psychology/ however are immense as all who
sence of valid scientiic evidence
social work and surgical areas deliver care, including the LCPC,
as to which methods produced
are either actively in progress or are able to adjust their protocols
the best results. It was questions
are being developed by working for quality control/assurance in
like those above that drove Dr.
groups. Slowly, data are being an efort to insure that the treat-
Long, LCPC’s Executive Director,
accumulated that suggest which ments they are ofering to their
in 2006 to invite colleagues from
procedures seem to be associ- patients have been shown to be
4 major cleft palate centers, to
ated with more favorable results the best available.
the Lancaster Cleft Palate Clinic
vs. those that may be related to
for the irst attempt in the USA The LCPC remains committed
less desirable results.
and Canada to directly compare to its leadership role in this

treatment outcomes. Each cen- The success of the Americleft process, not only for the beneit

ter invited used diferent treat- Project is now recognized world- of our own patients, but also to

ment approaches to the primary wide. It works in collaboration contribute the knowledge we

management of infants born with with a similar project in Europe have accumulated over 75 years

clefts, but before 2006 there (Eurocleft) and its members have of cleft care to our colleagues

was no information available
assisted in the development of
throughout the world.

Lancaster Cleft Palate Clinic ••• Behind the Smile eMagazine ••• Fall 2014 _______________________________ Page 3