Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 5, 2026

A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
An Institutional Comparative Cost Analysis Between Nasoalveolar Molding and Presurgical Lip, Alveolus, and Nose
Lucas R Perez Rivera1, Rami S Kantar, Vitorela Rrushi
1Hansjörg Wyss Department of Plastic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY.
Abstract:
Presurgical lip, alveolus, and nose approximation (PLANA) is a novel presurgical infant orthopedics approach that has demonstrated early favorable nasolabial outcomes. However, its associated costs have not been evaluated. This study compared treatment costs between PLANA and nasoalveolar molding (NAM). A single-institution retrospective review of patients treated with NAM (2018-2019) and PLANA (2024-2025) was conducted. Patients were grouped by unilateral or bilateral involvement, and the average number of visits per cohort was calculated. Publicly available standardized payment values from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services were used to approximate the costs of physician services and facility resources. Total costs were calculated from the sum of the costs for physician services, facilities, and medical supplies. Seventy-four patients were included, including 40 treated with NAM (unilateral 30 and bilateral 10), and 34 treated with PLANA (unilateral 24 and bilateral 10). For patients with a unilateral cleft, the average cost of NAM was $4362.37 (services: $1893.67, facilities: $2160.50, and supplies: $308.20), whereas the average cost of PLANA was $2791.94 (services: $752.61, facilities: $830.96, and supplies: $1208.37). Across patients with a bilateral cleft, the average cost of NAM was $4980.01 (services: $2178.93, facilities: $2492.88, and supplies: $308.20), whereas the average cost of PLANA was $3100.76 (services: $895.24, facilities: $997.15, and supplies: $1208.37). The cost of NAM is largely driven by physician services and facility expenses, whereas the cost of PLANA is primarily driven by medical supplies, offset by a reduced number of visits. These findings may inform cleft centers in their selection of presurgical orthopedic interventions and guide the development of standardized payment criteria.

