Research · Espoir Sourire← Back to home · ApplicationFR
Doctoral thesis in general medicine · Hope Africa University · 2026

Comparison of postoperative complication rates under two anthropometric eligibility criteria: WFA versus WFH

Dr Bénigne Irakoze · Supervisor: Dr Jason Fader · Kibuye Hope Hospital, Kibuye hill, Bukirasazi commune, Gitega province, Burundi.

300Operations analyzed
282Children operated on
2017–2026Period covered
2Historical groups
01 · Summary

Objective

To compare the frequency of postoperative complications in children with cleft lip and/or palate operated on after selection based on weight-for-age (WFA) with that observed after selection based on weight-for-length or height (WFH), at Kibuye Hope Hospital (KHH).

kappa 0.04Agreement between the two indices — near zero
24.9%Undernourished by WFA but proportionate by WFH
42.1%Of the WFH group would have been turned away under the old criterion
OR 0.90Complications at equal follow-up (adjusted, p = 0.779)

Key message. The switch to weight-for-height considerably widened access to surgery, was accompanied by a decline in surgical delay, and did not increase the risk related to nutritional status. The apparent rise in complications is explained mainly by detection bias: families in the second group could be reached two and a half times more often.

↑ Back to top
02 · Methods

Design, setting and periods

Analytical, retrospective, comparative study of two historical groups, based on the operating theater records of KHH. The change in eligibility criterion took place in April 2023.

Study groups
GroupEligibility criterionPeriod of operations
WFAWeight-for-age10 April 2017 – 17 March 2023
WFHWeight-for-length or height17 August 2023 – 3 June 2026

Sampling

Source population: 638 cleft operations recorded in the operating theater between April 2017 and June 2026 (294 before and 344 after the change). Random selection of 150 operations per period, i.e. 300 operations performed on 282 children (17 children operated on more than once). The unit of analysis is the operation.

The postoperative course was verified in the records and then by a standardized telephone call to the parents. A record whose family could not be reached and that had no documented complication was replaced by a new random draw; a record reporting a complication was always retained. Two patients who died (one per group) were excluded.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria
InclusionExclusion
Child operated on for cleft lip and/or palate at KHH during one of the two periodsAdult patients operated on for late revisions
Age ≥ 3 months (cheiloplasty) and ≥ 9 months (palatoplasty), weight ≥ 5 kg; revisions included without conditionRecords that could not be assigned to a period
Complete record: date of birth, sex, weight, date and type of operation, postoperative statusRecords with neither type of operation nor postoperative status; deceased patients

Operational definitions

  • Z-scores: WHO 2006 standards, LMS method with WHO correction beyond ±3; weight, height and age from the same day (preoperative weighing); WFA computable from 0 to 60 months; WFH = length before 24 months, height thereafter; physically impossible heights (< 45 cm or > 120 cm, z outside ±5) excluded.
  • Undernutrition: z < −2 (severe if z < −3).
  • Surgical delay: cheiloplasty after 6 months, palatoplasty after 18 months; secondary surgeries excluded.
  • Major complication: dehiscence, fistula, necrosis, bleeding, respiratory complication. Minor: residual asymmetry, keloid, otitis.
  • Family reached: parent or guardian who answered the call.

Statistical analysis & ethics

Categorical variables: chi-square and Fisher's exact test. Skewed quantitative variables: median [IQR] and Mann-Whitney. Associated factors: crude ORs [95% CI] then multivariate logistic regression (2 models, adjusted for reachability). Three sensitivity analyses. Threshold α = 0.05. Analyses performed in Python 3.11 (pandas, SciPy, statsmodels), checked in Excel.

Protocol submitted to the dean's office and to the HAU ethics committee; access to records authorized by the KHH management. Anonymized data (study number, no names, operators designated by a letter); oral consent at the start of each call; clinical photographs with eyes masked (appendices D and F).

↑ Back to top
03 · Population characteristics

300 operations, two comparable groups

Table 3 · Age at surgery by eligibility criterion
Age at surgeryWFA groupWFH groupTotal
Median age [Q1–Q3] (months)9 [5; 15]6 [4; 11]—
0–5 months42 (28.0%)63 (42.0%)105 (35.0%)
6–11 months50 (33.3%)54 (36.0%)104 (34.7%)
12–23 months44 (29.3%)26 (17.3%)70 (23.3%)
24–59 months12 (8.0%)6 (4.0%)18 (6.0%)
60 months and over2 (1.3%)1 (0.7%)3 (1.0%)
Children in the WFH group were operated on younger (p = 0.010); share operated on before 6 months: 28.0% → 42.0% (p = 0.023).
Tables 5–6 · Cleft types, laterality and techniques
WFAWFHTotal
Cleft lip or cleft lip and alveolus73 (48.7)62 (41.3)135 (45.0)
Isolated cleft palate11 (7.3)14 (9.3)25 (8.3)
Cleft lip and palate66 (44.0)74 (49.3)140 (46.7)
Unilateral / Bilateral / Median65.3 / 32.0 / 2.753.3 / 44.7 / 2.059.3 / 38.3 / 2.3
Cheiloplasty93 (62.0)91 (60.7)184 (61.3)
Palatoplasty42 (28.0)53 (35.3)95 (31.7)
Secondary surgery15 (10.0)6 (4.0)21 (7.0)
Fisher technique78 (52.0)68 (45.3)146 (48.7)
Two-flap palatoplasty30 (20.0)51 (34.0)81 (27.0)
Cleft types: p = 0.425. Bilateral clefts more frequent in the WFH group (44.7% vs 32.0%; p = 0.035). Balanced sex ratio: 50.3% boys (p = 0.817). Children came from almost every province and from neighboring countries; Gitega was the most represented (20.3%).
Table 4 · Province of residence of the children (300 operations)
ProvinceWFA groupWFH groupTotal
Gitega36 (24.0)25 (16.7)61 (20.3)
Ruyigi20 (13.3)6 (4.0)26 (8.7)
Rutana11 (7.3)13 (8.7)24 (8.0)
Bujumbura Mairie14 (9.3)8 (5.3)22 (7.3)
Makamba9 (6.0)12 (8.0)21 (7.0)
Muyinga6 (4.0)11 (7.3)17 (5.7)
Karuzi9 (6.0)6 (4.0)15 (5.0)
Ngozi7 (4.7)7 (4.7)14 (4.7)
Cankuzo6 (4.0)6 (4.0)12 (4.0)
Muramvya2 (1.3)9 (6.0)11 (3.7)
Other provinces and outside Burundi30 (20.0)47 (31.3)77 (25.7)
The children came from almost every province of the country and from a few neighboring countries; Gitega, the hospital's province, was the most represented, confirming the center's role as a national referral center.
↑ Back to top
04 · Nutritional status

Two indices, two different populations

Table 7 · Preoperative nutritional status according to the two indices
StatusWFA groupWFH groupTotal
Weight-for-age (evaluable n = 297)
Normal129 (87.2)87 (58.4)216 (72.7)
Moderate underweight14 (9.5)38 (25.5)52 (17.5)
Severe underweight5 (3.4)24 (16.1)29 (9.8)
Weight-for-height (evaluable n = 257)
Normal101 (90.2)135 (93.1)236 (91.8)
Overweight7 (6.2)4 (2.8)11 (4.3)
Moderate acute malnutrition2 (1.8)5 (3.4)7 (2.7)
Severe acute malnutrition2 (1.8)1 (0.7)3 (1.2)
Mean WFA z-score: −1.22 versus −1.69 (p < 0.001); mean WFH z-score: −0.04 versus −0.07 (p = 0.819). Undernourished by WFA: 12.8% → 41.6% (p < 0.001); by WFH: 3.6% → 4.1% (p = 1.000).
Table 8 · Cross-classification of the two criteria (threshold z < −2, n = 257)
Classification by WFAWFH undernourishedWFH not undernourishedTotal
WFA undernourished46468
WFA not undernourished6183189
Apparent agreement 72.8% but kappa 0.04: 64 operations (24.9%) involved a child undernourished by WFA only, and 6 (2.3%) the reverse.

By WFA, the proportion of undernourished children rose from 12.8% (WFA group) to 41.6% (WFH group) — p < 0.001. By WFH, it remained low and stable (3.6% vs 4.1%; p = 1.000). Children operated on under the new protocol are more often light for their age but proportionate: they are small, not thin. Burundian context: chronic malnutrition in 55.9% of children aged 6–59 months (AGVSAN 2023) versus ~6% acute malnutrition — WFA mechanically excludes many children there.

↑ Back to top
05 · Access to surgery

The change of criterion opened the operating theater

In the WFH group, 61 of 145 operations (42.1%) involved a child who would have been turned away or deferred under the old criterion — 57 of them with a normal weight-for-height. In the WFA group: only 7 of 112 (6.2%). This gain was accompanied by a decline in surgical delay:

Table 9 · Surgical delay by type of primary surgery
TypeWFAWFHp
All primary surgeries41/135 (30.4%)19/144 (13.2%)< 0.001
Cheiloplasty36/93 (38.7%)13/91 (14.3%)< 0.001
Palatoplasty5/42 (11.9%)6/53 (11.3%)0.930
The improvement lies entirely in cheiloplasty; the delay for palatoplasties remained unchanged. Median length of hospital stay: 3 → 2 days (p = 0.020).

Nutritional rehabilitation is, moreover, feasible and rapid — 63.7% of children eligible within six weeks for about 25 dollars according to program data — but it requires the family to come back: every child wrongly classified as undernourished means a journey, a delay and a risk of dropping out.

↑ Back to top
06 · Complications

An apparent rise, five fistulas in 300

Tables 10–11 · Complications by group and by type
TypeWFAWFHTotal
At least one complication18 (12.0%)35 (23.3%)53 (17.7%)
Of which major7 (4.7%)22 (14.7%)29 (9.7%)
Dehiscence41519
Oronasal fistula055
Necrosis011
Bleeding101
Respiratory complication213
Significant asymmetry (minor)91221
Keloid (minor)112
Crude rate: OR 2.23 [1.20; 4.15], p = 0.010 (major p = 0.003). The fistula rate (5/300) remains low compared with the 8.6% of a review of 9,294 cases and the 25–35% of African series.
Table 12 · Annual trend (operations · complications · rate)
Year2017201820192020202120222023202420252026
N / comp. / %18 · 1 · 5.613 · 2 · 15.410 · 1 · 10.016 · 1 · 6.256 · 6 · 10.733 · 5 · 15.218 · 5 · 27.836 · 10 · 27.864 · 16 · 25.036 · 6 · 16.7

The rate rises in 2023, the year of the change (15.2% → 27.8%), then falls in 2025–2026 — consistent with a learning curve for the new team and a detection effect.

↑ Back to top
07 · Telephone follow-up and detection bias

The key to reading the whole study

Families in the WFH group were reached 2.5 times more often (98/150 versus 38/150; p < 0.001) — older phone numbers were switched off, nonexistent or reassigned. Yet some complications were discovered by telephone only.

Table 13 · Complications at equal follow-up
SubgroupWFAWFHp
Families reached · all complications13/38 (34.2%)34/98 (34.7%)0.958
Families reached · major complications2/38 (5.3%)21/98 (21.4%)0.023
Families not reached · all complications5/112 (4.5%)1/52 (1.9%)0.666
Central result: among families reached, complication rates are identical in the two groups. The OR for the WFH criterion adjusted for reachability (Mantel-Haenszel) is 0.90 [0.44; 1.86], p = 0.779. The apparent excess reflects better detection, not a higher risk.

An important caveat: among families reached, major complications remain more frequent in the WFH group (21.4% vs 5.3%) — mostly dehiscences and fistulas, related to a more bilateral case mix and the arrival of a new national surgical team (77% of WFH operations performed by surgeons D and E). For surgeon A, the only one present in both periods, the difference is not significant (9.8% → 14.7%; p = 0.532). Undernutrition was not associated with complications either by WFA (23.5% vs 15.3%; p = 0.122) or by WFH — the 62 children in the WFH group who would have been excluded by the old criterion did not have more complications (p = 0.433).

↑ Back to top
08 · Factors associated with complications

Univariate then multivariate: reachability dominates

Table 16 · Univariate analysis (crude ORs [95% CI])
FactorCrude OR [95% CI]p
WFH criterion (vs WFA)2.23 [1.20; 4.15]0.015
Patient reached by telephone13.91 [5.72; 33.81]< 0.001
Undernutrition by WFA (z < −2)1.70 [0.90; 3.20]0.122
Surgical delay1.69 [0.85; 3.36]0.135
Palatoplasty2.05 [1.12; 3.76]0.023
Bilateral cleft2.26 [1.24; 4.13]0.008
Male sex1.03 [0.57; 1.86]1.000
Age < 6 months0.69 [0.36; 1.32]0.341

Multivariate logistic regression (model 2, adjusted for reachability)

Family reached
OR 20.33
Bilateral cleft
OR 2.65
Palatoplasty
OR 1.97 ns
Surgical delay
OR 1.88 ns
Undernutrition (WFA)
OR 1.37 ns
WFH criterion
OR 0.66 ns

Log scale: each bar is proportional to log(OR+1). The WFH criterion, significant in model 1 (OR 2.11; p = 0.046), is no longer significant in model 2: having reached the family captures the entire signal. Models based on 279 operations and 51 complications.

↑ Back to top
09 · Sensitivity analyses

The crude difference withstands two of three tests

12.4% / 23.4%One operation per child only (p = 0.014) — difference retained
10.4% / 23.0%Without the 8 operations outside the criteria (p = 0.004) — retained
OR 0.90Adjustment for reachability (p = 0.779) — not retained
↑ Back to top
10 · Conclusion & recommendations

What the network takes from it

The data are consistent with the hypothesis that weight-for-length or height improves access to surgery without increasing the risk of complications related to nutritional status. WFA retains its full value as a public health indicator; it is its use as a surgical eligibility criterion that is called into question.

At the hospitalMaintain WFH and document the threshold in writing; postoperative visit on a fixed schedule (1 and 3 months); verify phone numbers at every visit; distinguish surgical complications from esthetic outcomes; mentoring for bilateral clefts; written consent for any photograph.
To the ministry & nutrition programsWFA and WFH are not interchangeable for deciding on an operation; strengthen feeding support for infants with clefts from the maternity ward onward.
To future researchersProspective study with identical standardized follow-up for all; include children presented but not operated on to measure the effect of access; separate the operator effect from the criterion effect.
↑ Back to top
11 · Study limitations

Read honestly

  • Detection bias — complications sought by telephone, WFH families reached 2.5× more often; measured and corrected by adjustment, but it limits the comparison of crude rates.
  • Retention rule — unreachable records reporting a complication were retained; the others were replaced whenever possible. This choice slightly inflates the rates.
  • Confounding of criterion / period / team — everything changed at the same time; no effect can be attributed to the criterion alone.
  • Retrospective reclassification — children turned away before surgery do not appear in the records; the gain in access is estimated from children who were operated on.
  • Non-standardized follow-up — late complications underestimated, heights sometimes missing or aberrant, eligibility threshold not documented in writing at the time.
  • Two deceased patients excluded — including them would have increased major complications.
  • Limited power — 51 complications for 7 variables in the multivariate model: the absence of an effect of undernutrition is absence of evidence, not evidence of absence.
↑ Back to top
12 · Main references

Key sources cited in the thesis

#Reference
[7]Delage B, Stieber E, Sheeran P. Prevalence of malnutrition among children at primary cleft surgery: a cross-sectional analysis of a global database. J Glob Health. 2022;12:04012.
[11]MINEAGRIE / INSBU / PAM. Analyse globale de la vulnérabilité, de la sécurité alimentaire et de la nutrition au Burundi (AGVSAN 2023). Bujumbura, 2023.
[17]Smile Train. Safety and Quality Protocol, July 2025 version.
[18–19]WHO, NLiS “Malnutrition in children”; WHO/UNICEF 2009, identification of severe acute malnutrition.
[23]Multi-country East African series (86,683 records, 14 countries) cited in the discussion.
[38]1,313 cheiloplasties: no element of the “rule of 10s” predictive except weight.
[45]TOPS trial: less velopharyngeal insufficiency after palatoplasty at 6 months than at 12 months.
[47]Review of 9,294 cases: fistula in 8.6% of patients.
[48–50, 64]Nigerian series (25–35% fistulas), Uganda (malnutrition associated with fistula), Nicaragua (low MUAC associated with dehiscence).
[52–54]Discordant literature on undernutrition and complications (South Africa, prospective cohort, 627 children).
[58, 66–67]1,112 operations by locally trained surgeons in the DRC; bilaterality and risk of dehiscence (×4.03); propensity score.
Full list: thesis “Comparaison du taux de complications postopératoires…”, IRAKOZE Bénigne, HAU 2026, pp. 42–46.

Apply these results in your facility?

The Espoir Sourire application embeds this protocol: WHO z-scores, real-time WFA vs WFH verdict, standardized follow-up.

Open the application