Orthognathic Surgery Rates in Furlow Double-Opposing Z-Plasty Versus Straight-Line Repair: A Review of Three Decades of Experience.

ObjectiveThe influence of different surgical techniques on maxillary growth remains unclear. This study investigates the long-term impact of Furlow double-opposing Z-plasty versus straight-line repair (SLR) techniques on midface growth and subsequent orthognathic surgery.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingTertiary children's hospital.Patients/participantsThis study evaluated patients who underwent primary palatoplasty with Furlow or SLR techniques from 1994-2023. Patients were >14 years old at their most recent follow-up.InterventionsNo interventions were performed.Main Outcome Measure(s)Primary outcomes were orthognathic surgery and orthognathic surgery recommendation rates to correct midface hypoplasia (MFH). Cephalometrics at the time of orthognathic surgery recommendation were traced to validate MFH.ResultsIn total, 1857 patients underwent palatoplasty, of which 335 met inclusion criteria (49 SLR, 286 Furlow). Average age at last follow-up was 18.5±2.6 years. Patients who underwent Furlow versus SLR showed no significant difference in orthognathic surgery rates (p=0.428) or recommendation for orthognathic surgery rates (p=0.900). Patients recommended to undergo orthognathic surgery had more negative ANB angles (p<0.001) and smaller SNA angles (p<0.001) than patients not recommended for orthognathic surgery, demonstrating maxillary hypoplasia. Upon multivariate regression, patients with Veau III and IV clefts had an increased need for orthognathic surgery, p=0.047 and p=0.008, respectively.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that higher cleft severity contributes to future orthognathic surgery. However, palatoplasty technique did not influence orthognathic surgery rates. Our results provide valuable data when surgeons are considering the impact of palatoplasty technique on sagittal growth restriction.