Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 20, 2026
Quantification of Orofacial Phenotypes in Xenopus
Published on: November 6, 2014
Growth Parameters in Children with Non-syndromic Cleft Lip and Palate versus Healthy Controls: A Cohort Study from
Fadiah Alkhattabi1,2, Aziza Aljohar3, Atheer Alharbi1
1Department of Pediatrics, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Insights
Children with cleft lip and palate (CLP) show lower weight and head circumference in the first year. However, catch-up growth by age two, post-surgery, makes these differences insignificant in Saudi children.
Area of Science:
- Pediatric Health
- Craniofacial Anomalies
- Growth and Development
Background:
- Cleft lip and palate (CLP) impacts child physical development, but data is limited.
- Understanding growth patterns in children with CLP is crucial.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare growth parameters between Saudi children with non-syndromic CLP and healthy controls.
- To assess the impact of CLP on weight, length, and head circumference.
Main Methods:
- A retrospective cohort study comparing Saudi children with CLP to age- and gender-matched healthy controls (1:1 ratio).
- Growth measurements (weight, length, head circumference) were recorded at 1 and 2 years of age.
- The Saudi Growth Chart was used as a reference.
Main Results:
- At 1 year, CLP patients had significantly lower weight and head circumference SDS compared to controls.
- These significant differences in growth parameters were not observed at 2 years of age.
- Catch-up growth was observed in 76.1% of early repair and 63.2% of late repair groups by age two.
Conclusions:
- Saudi children with CLP experience initial growth deficits in weight and head circumference during the first year.
- Surgical repair facilitates catch-up growth, normalizing these parameters by the second year of life.
- Early intervention and monitoring are key for optimal growth outcomes in children with CLP.
Background:
Cleft lip and palate (CLP) can have an impact on the physical development of children; however, data from such studies is currently limited.
Objectives:
To compare growth parameters between children with non-syndromic CLP and healthy controls in Saudi Arabia.
Materials And Methods:
This case-control retrospective cohort study included Saudi children with CLP and age- and gender-matched healthy children (1:1) who attended a tertiary care center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Growth measurements (weight, length, and head circumference) were taken at the ages of 1 year and 2 years, and the Saudi Growth Chart was used as a reference data.
Results:
The study included 86 children in each group (N = 172), with 31.4% females and 68.6% males. The mean current age was 3.2 ± 1.7 years. Most patients had a unilateral CLP (96.5%). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that at the age of 1 year, compared with controls, patients with CLP had significantly lower weight (OR: 1.7, P = 0.026), weight standard deviation score (SDS) (OR: 0.4, P = 0.001), and head circumference SDS (OR: 0.8, P <0.001); however, these did not remain significant at the age of 2 years. In the early repair (age <1 year) and late repair (age ≥1 year) groups, 76.1% and 63.2% of the patients achieved catch-up growth.
Conclusion:
This study found that Saudi children with cleft lip and palate had significantly lower weight and head circumference compared with healthy children in the first year of life, but catch-up growth in the second year of life, largely following surgical repair, rendered these differences to be insignificant.
