Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Jan 11.
Published in final edited form as: Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2020 Mar 24;57(8):975–983. doi: 10.1177/1055665620913440

Table 2:

Regression Analysis Results

Outcome: VPI Diagnosis – Logistic Regression
Exposure Univariate Analysis Multivariate Analysis a
OR 95% CI p-value OR 95% CI p-value
Two-Stage Repair 1.67 (1.3,2.2) <0.001 1.80 (1.4,2.4) <0.001
Surgeon Volumeb 0.98 (0.97,.99) 0.006
Outcome: Speech Surgery – Logistic Regression
Two-Stage Repair 1.16 (0.8,1.6) 0.38 1.22 (0.9, 1.7) 0.23
Surgeon Volumeb 0.98 (0.96,0.99) 0.001
Outcome: Total Palate ProceduresdLinear Regression
Number of
Proceduresd
95% CI p-value Number of
Procedures
95% CI p-value
Two-Stage Repair 3.45 (3.3,3.6) <0.001 2.30 (1.7,3.0) <0.001
Surgeon Volumeb −0.03 (−0.06,−0.01) 0.004
Veau
 I −2.47 (−4.0,−0.9) 0.002
 II −2.13 (−2.9,−1.4) 0.002
 III −1.03 (−1.6,0.4) <0.001
 IV -- -- --

Abbreviations: OR – Odds Ratio; CI – Confidence Interval

a

Logistic Regression – All multivariate models began by adjusting for Veau classification, surgeon volume, race, gender, and insurance status. Logistic regressions also adjusted for year of birth. Significant co-variates were retained in the final multivariate analysis.

b

Per 10 repairs done.

c

Linear Regression—Multivariate models adjusted as above, but excluding year of birth.

d

Excludes surgical days on which only prosthesis management occurred