Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

The Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (대한구강악안면외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Unilateral cleft lip repair: a comparison of treatment outcome with two surgical techniques using quantitative (anthropometry) assessment

  • Adetayo, Adekunle M. (Department of Surgery, Babcock University) ;
  • James, Olutayo (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Lagos) ;
  • Adeyemo, Wasiu L. (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Lagos) ;
  • Ogunlewe, Mobolanle O. (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Lagos) ;
  • Butali, Azeez (Department of Oral Pathology, Radiology, and Medicine, College of Dentistry, University of Iowa)
  • Received : 2016.12.30
  • Accepted : 2017.05.07
  • Published : 2018.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: The unilateral cleft lip (UCL) repair technique has evolved extensively over the past century into its modern form and has been identified as an important determinant of treatment outcome. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare treatment outcomes following repair of UCL using either the Tennison-Randall (triangular) technique or the Millard rotation-advancement technique. Materials and Methods: This was a prospective randomized controlled study conducted at the Lagos University Teaching Hospital between January 2013 and July 2014. A total of 48 subjects with UCL presenting for primary surgery and who satisfied the inclusion criteria were recruited for the study. The subjects were randomly allocated into two surgical groups through balloting. Group A underwent cleft repair with the Tennison-Randall technique, while group B underwent cleft repair with the Millard rotation-advancement technique. Surgical outcome was assessed quantitatively according to anthropometric measurements, using a method described by Cutting and Dayan (2003). Results: Our 48 enrolled subjects were evenly divided into the two surgery groups (n=24 for both group A and group B). Twenty-seven subjects were male (56.3%) and 21 were female (43.8%), making a sex ratio of 1.3:1. The Millard group showed a greater increase in postoperative horizontal length and vertical lip height and a greater reduction in nasal width and total nasal width. Meanwhile, the Tennison-Randall group showed better reduction of Cupid's-bow width and better philtral height. Conclusion: We did not find any significant differences in the surgical outcomes from the two techniques. The expertise of the surgeon and individual patient preferences are the main factors to consider when selecting the technique for unilateral cleft repair.

Keywords

References

  1. Demke JC, Tatum SA. Analysis and evolution of rotation principles in unilateral cleft lip repair. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2011;64:313-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2010.03.004
  2. Arosarena OA. Cleft lip and palate. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2007;40:27-60, vi. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otc.2006.10.011
  3. Sykes JM. Management of the cleft lip deformity. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2001;9:37-50.
  4. Kirschner RE, LaRossa D. Cleft lip and palate. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2000;33:1191-215, v-vi. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0030-6665(05)70277-2
  5. Nwoku AL. Experiences on the surgical repair of unoperated adult cleft patients in Nigeria. Niger Med J 1976;4:417-21.
  6. Millard DR Jr. A radical rotation in single harelip. Am J Surg 1958;95:318-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9610(58)90525-7
  7. Kim HY, Park J, Chang MC, Song IS, Seo BM. Modified Fisher method for unilateral cleft lip-report of cases. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2017;39:12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-017-0109-1
  8. Cutting CB, Dayan JH. Lip height and lip width after extended Mohler unilateral cleft lip repair. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003;111:17-23. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-200301000-00003
  9. van de Ven B, Defrancq J, Defrancq E. In: Cleft lip surgery: a practical guide. 2nd ed. Zgierz: Drukarna WIST; 2008:1-27.
  10. Asher-McDade C, Roberts C, Shaw WC, Gallager C. Development of a method for rating nasolabial appearance in patients with clefts of the lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1991;28:385-90; discussion 390-1. https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569(1991)028<0385:DOAMFR>2.3.CO;2
  11. Christofides E. Evaluation of unilateral cleft lip repairs and the evolution of a new technique based on experience and research. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009;62:50-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2007.10.017
  12. Abdurrazaq TO, Micheal AO, Lanre AW, Olugbenga OM, Akin LL. Surgical outcome and complications following cleft lip and palate repair in a teaching hospital in Nigeria. Afr J Paediatr Surg 2013;10:345-57. https://doi.org/10.4103/0189-6725.125447
  13. Al-Omari I, Millett DT, Ayoub AF. Methods of assessment of cleft-related facial deformity: a review. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2005;42:145-56. https://doi.org/10.1597/02-149.1
  14. Farkas LG, Hajnis K, Posnick JC. Anthropometric and anthroposcopic findings of the nasal and facial region in cleft patients before and after primary lip and palate repair. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1993;30:1-12. https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569(1993)030<0001:AAAFOT>2.3.CO;2
  15. Sharma VP, Bella H, Cadier MM, Pigott RW, Goodacre TE, Richard BM. Outcomes in facial aesthetics in cleft lip and palate surgery: a systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2012;65:1233-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2012.04.001
  16. Tobiasen JM, Hiebert JM. Facial impairment scales for clefts. Plast Reconstr Surg 1994;93:31-41. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199401000-00005
  17. Chou PY, Luo CC, Chen PK, Chen YR, Samuel Noordhoff M, Lo LJ. Preoperative lip measurement in patients with complete unilateral cleft lip/palate and its comparison with norms. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2013;66:513-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2012.12.002
  18. Hakim SG, Aschoff HH, Jacobsen HC, Sieg P. Unilateral cleft lip/nose repair using an equal bows/straight line advancement technique: a preliminary report and postoperative symmetry-based anthropometry. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2014;42:e39-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2013.05.028
  19. Kernahan DA, Stark RB. A new classification for cleft lip and cleft palate. Plast Reconstr Surg Transplant Bull 1958;22:435-41. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-195811000-00001
  20. Kernahan DA. The striped Y--a symbolic classification for cleft lip and palate. Plast Reconstr Surg 1971;47:469-70. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-197105000-00010
  21. Campbell A, Costello BJ, Ruiz RL. Cleft lip and palate surgery: an update of clinical outcomes for primary repair. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2010;22:43-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coms.2009.11.003
  22. Kumar V, Abbas AK, Fausto N. Robbins and Cotran pathologic basis of disease. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2005:113-7.
  23. Clark RA. Wound repair. In: Clark RAF, ed. The molecular and cellular biology of wound repair. New York: Plenum Press; 1996:3-50.
  24. Amaratunga NA. Combining Millard's and Cronin's methods of unilateral cleft lip repair - a comparative study. Asian J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004;16:5-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0915-6992(04)80001-3
  25. Hurwitz DJ, Ashby ER, Llull R, Pasqual J, Tabor C, Garrison L, et al. Computer-assisted anthropometry for outcome assessment of cleft lip. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999;103:1608-23. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199905000-00007
  26. Millard DR. Cleft craft: the evolution of its surgery: the unilateral deformity Vol. 1. Boston: Little Brown; 1976:15-40.
  27. Bilwatsch S, Kramer M, Haeusler G, Schuster M, Wurm J, Vairaktaris E, et al. Nasolabial symmetry following Tennison-Randall lip repair: a three-dimensional approach in 10-year-old patients with unilateral clefts of lip, alveolus and palate. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2006;34:253-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2006.03.001
  28. Xing H, Bing S, Kamdar M, Yang L, Qian Z, Sheng L, et al. Changes in lip 1 year after modified Millard repair. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;37:117-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2007.08.209
  29. Chowdri NA, Darzi MA, Ashraf MM. A comparative study of surgical results with rotation-advancement and triangular flap techniques in unilateral cleft lip. Br J Plast Surg 1990;43:551-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-1226(90)90119-K
  30. Sameh E, Amr S, Ashraf E. Evaluation of primary unilateral cleft lip repair: a proposed scoring system. Egypt J Surg 2009;28:4-7.
  31. Yamada T, Mori Y, Minami K, Mishima K, Sugahara T. Threedimensional facial morphology, following primary cleft lip repair using the triangular flap with or without rotation advancement. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2002;30:337-42. https://doi.org/10.1054/jcms.2002.0320

Cited by

  1. Classification of the journal category "oral surgery" in the Scopus and the Science Citation Index Expanded: flaws and suggestions vol.45, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2019.45.4.186
  2. Marked Variation Exists Among Surgeons and Hospitals in the Use of Secondary Cleft Lip Surgery vol.57, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665619880056
  3. Social Perception of Facial Feminization Surgery Outcomes: Does Gender Identity Alter Gaze? vol.41, pp.10, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjaa377
  4. Anthropometric Outcome of Primary Unilateral Cleft Lip Repair in Indonesia vol.58, pp.10, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665620982757