Unilateral cleft lip: evaluation and comparison of treatment outcome with two surgical techniques based on qualitative (subject/guardian and professional) assessment

OBJECTIVES: The outcomes of the treatment of unilateral cleft lip can vary considerably due to variations in repair techniques. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare treatment outcomes of surgical repair of unilateral cleft lip using either the Tennison–Randall or Millard technique based on (qualitative) parent/subject and professional assessments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, controlled study conducted at Lagos University Teaching Hospital between January 2013 and July 2014. A total of 56 subjects with unilateral cleft lip presenting for primary surgery who satisfied the inclusion criteria were recruited for the study. Subjects were randomly allocated to surgical groups A or B 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 using qualitative evaluation by the guardian/subject and independent assessors based on a modified form of the criteria described by Christofides and colleagues. RESULTS: Of the 56 subjects enrolled in this study, 32 were male, with a male to female ratio of 1.3:1. Fifteen of the guardians/subjects in the Tennison–Randall group were most bothered about the lower part of the residual lip scar, while 12 guardians/subjects in the in the Millard group were most bothered about the upper part of the scar. More noses were judged to be flattened in the Millard group than in the Tennison–Randall group. Assessors observed a striking disparity in scar transgression of the philtral ridges between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Essentially, there were no major difference in the overall results between Millard rotation-advancement and Tennison–Randall repairs. Both Millard and Tennison–Randall's techniques require significant improvements to improve the appearance of the scar on the upper part and lower part of the lip, respectively.

Unilateral cleft lip: evaluation and comparison of treatment outcome with two surgical techniques based on qualitative (subject/guardian and professional) assessment

OBJECTIVES@#The outcomes of the treatment of unilateral cleft lip can vary considerably due to variations in repair techniques. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare treatment outcomes of surgical repair of unilateral cleft lip using either the Tennison–Randall or Millard technique based on (qualitative) parent/subject and professional assessments.@*MATERIALS AND METHODS@#This was a prospective, randomized, controlled study conducted at Lagos University Teaching Hospital between January 2013 and July 2014. A total of 56 subjects with unilateral cleft lip presenting for primary surgery who satisfied the inclusion criteria were recruited for the study. Subjects were randomly allocated to surgical groups A or B 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 using qualitative evaluation by the guardian/subject and independent assessors based on a modified form of the criteria described by Christofides and colleagues.@*RESULTS@#Of the 56 subjects enrolled in this study, 32 were male, with a male to female ratio of 1.3:1. Fifteen of the guardians/subjects in the Tennison–Randall group were most bothered about the lower part of the residual lip scar, while 12 guardians/subjects in the in the Millard group were most bothered about the upper part of the scar. More noses were judged to be flattened in the Millard group than in the Tennison–Randall group. Assessors observed a striking disparity in scar transgression of the philtral ridges between the two groups.@*CONCLUSION@#Essentially, there were no major difference in the overall results between Millard rotation-advancement and Tennison–Randall repairs. Both Millard and Tennison–Randall's techniques require significant improvements to improve the appearance of the scar on the upper part and lower part of the lip, respectively.

A comparative study of immediate wound healing complications following cleft lip repair using either absorbable or non-absorbable skin sutures

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare wound healing complications following the use of either absorbable or non-absorbable sutures for skin closure in cleft lip repair. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a randomized controlled trial conducted at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Lagos University Teaching Hospital, Idi Araba, Lagos State, Nigeria. Sixty subjects who required either primary or secondary cleft lip repair and satisfied all the inclusion criteria were recruited and randomized into two groups (Vicryl group or Nylon group). The surgical wounds in all subjects were examined on 3rd, 7th, and 14th postoperative days (POD) for presence or absence of tissue reactivity, wound dehiscence, and local wound infection. RESULTS: Hemorrhage, tissue reactivity, wound dehiscence, and local wound infection were identified as wound healing complications following cleft lip repair. The incidence of postoperative wound healing complications on POD3 was 33.3%. Tissue reactivity was more common throughout the evaluation period with the use of an absorbable (Vicryl) suture compared to a non-absorbable (Nylon) suture, although the difference was statistically significant only on POD7 (P=0.002). There were no significant differences in the incidences of wound dehiscence and infection between the two groups throughout the observation period. CONCLUSION: There were no statistically significant differences in the incidences of wound dehiscence and surgical site wound infection following the use of either Vicryl or Nylon for skin closure during cleft lip repair. However, more cases of tissue reactivity were recorded in the Vicryl group than in the Nylon group on POD7. Particular attention must be paid to detect the occurrence of wound healing complications, most especially tissue reactivity, whenever a Vicryl suture is used for skin closure in cleft lip repair.