Lips and noses in 10-year old patients with repaired complete unilateral clefts of lip, alveolus, and palate. A prospective three-centre study of the Baltic Cleft Network.

This multicenter study aimed at comparing different techniques of lip and nose repair with or without NAM and primary anterior rhinoplasty in pre-adolescent children. Patients with unilateral clefts of lip, alveolus, and palate who had undergone cleft lip and nose repair were evaluated in a prospective three-centre study using standardized monochromatic, cropped photographs. Four cleft surgeons evaluated the aesthetics of the central part of the face when the patients had reached age ten years. Seventy-six sets of photographs out of 87 patients were evaluated. The overall ratings of lips and noses did not differ much between centres. However, noses of centres 1 (mean 0.74; SD 0.57) and 2 (mean 0.76; SD 0.60) had been rated better than centre 3 (mean 1.32; SD 0.78; p = 0.0078), especially "Deformation of upper part of nostril rim or poor position of alar cartilage". Centre 3 had produced better looking scars (mean 0.33; SD 0.48); p = 0.0036. Within the limitations of the study it seems that NAM and primary anterior rhinoplasty including postoperative nasal stents should be performed whenever possible in order to achieve a favorable shape of the nose and to reduce the need for secondary corrective surgery.

3D Assessment of Nasolabial Appearance in Patients With Complete Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate.

OBJECTIVE: Rhinoplasty in patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) is challenging, and the surgical outcome of the nose is complicated to evaluate. The aim of this study was to assess the nasolabial appearance of patients with UCLP compared with a control group. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Riga Cleft Lip and Palate Centre, Latvia. PARTICIPANTS: All consecutive 35 patients born between 1994 and 2004 with nonsyndromic complete UCLP were included. Of 35 patients, 29 came for checkup; the mean age was 14.7 years (range 10-18). In the control group, 35 noncleft participants at 10 years of age were included. INTERVENTIONS: Nasolabial appearance was evaluated from 3-dimensional images using a 3-dimensional stereo-photogrammetric camera setup (3dMDface System), the results being analysed statistically. RESULTS: In UCLP group, a statistically significant difference between cleft and noncleft side was found only in alar wing length ( P < .05). The difference of nasolabial anthropometric distances in the control group between the left and right side was not significant. The difference between the UCLP group and the control group was significant in all anthropometric distances except the lateral lip length to cupid's bow. CONCLUSIONS: The nasolabial appearance with acceptable symmetry after cleft lip and reconstructive surgery of the nose was achieved. Symmetry of the nasolabial appearance in patients with UCLP differed from those in the control group. The 3D photographs with a proposed set of anthropometric landmarks for evaluation of nasolabial appearance seems to be a convenient, accurate, and noninvasive way to follow and evaluate patients after surgery.

Cleft-related nose deformation evaluation and measurement methods. Literature review.

INTRODUCTION: Rhinoplasty for the cleft lip and palate patient is very challenging and surgical outcome of the nose is difficult to evaluate. Discussions of aesthetic evaluation of the nose in cleft lip and palate patients remain problematical. Many different nose aesthetic evaluation methods have been described in the literature; they differ even among articles published in a single year. AIM: To analyse the literature concerning aesthetic evaluation of the nose in cleft lip and palate patients and to identify the most objective method for such evaluation postoperatively. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The literature was reviewed using MedLine and PubMed sources dated between January 1996 and December 2014. In total, 118 full text articles in English language were selected. Exclusion criteria were: case reports, surgical reviews, literature review, and single evaluations of nasal function. RESULTS: Measurements were obtained from two-dimensional images in 73 articles. Noses were evaluated from 3D images in 22 and by clinical examination in 15. Other methods were evaluation from dental/facial casts, cephalometric evaluation, computer tomography and video recording. In 26 articles some combination of methods was used. CONCLUSIONS: The most popular evaluation method is still two-dimensional photography and measurements using anthropometric facial landmarks. Measurements from three-dimensional images seem to be the most objective method and automated facial anthropometric landmark protraction seems to hold promise for the future.