Unilateral cleft lip repair: a comparison of treatment outcome with two surgical techniques using quantitative (anthropometry) assessment
2
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
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 us-ing 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 an-thropometric 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.
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 us-ing 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 an-thropometric 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.
참고문헌 (31)
- Demke JC, "Analysis and evolution of rotation principles in unilateral cleft lip repair", J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg, 64, pp.313~318 (2011)[DOI]
- Arosarena OA, "Cleft lip and palate", Otolaryngol Clin North Am, 40, pp.27~60 (2007)
- Sykes JM, "Management of the cleft lip deformity", Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am, 9, pp.37~50 (2001)
- Kirschner RE, "Cleft lip and palate", Otolaryngol Clin North Am, 33, pp.1191~1215 (2000)[DOI]
- Nwoku AL, "Experiences on the surgical repair of unoperated adult cleft patients in Nigeria", Niger Med J, 4, pp.417~421 (1976)
- Millard DR Jr, "A radical rotation in single harelip", Am J Surg, 95, pp.318~322 (1958)[DOI]
- 김희영, "Modified Fisher method for unilateral cleft lip-report of cases", Maxillofacial Plastic Reconstructive Surgery, 39(5), pp.1~5 (2017), 대한악안면성형재건외과학회[DOI]
- Cutting CB, "Lip height and lip width after extended Mohler unilateral cleft lip repair", Plast Reconstr Surg, 111, pp.17~23 (2003)[DOI]
- van de Ven B, "Cleft lip surgery: a practical guide", pp.1~27 (2008), Drukarna WIST
- Asher-McDade C, "Development of a method for rating nasolabial appearance in patients with clefts of the lip and palate", Cleft Palate Craniofac J, 28, pp.385~390 (1991)[DOI]
- 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, 62, pp.50~55 (2009)[DOI]
- Abdurrazaq TO, "Surgical outcome and complications following cleft lip and palate repair in a teaching hospital in Nigeria", Afr J Paediatr Surg, 10, pp.345~357 (2013)[DOI]
- Al-Omari I, "Methods of assessment of cleft-related facial deformity: a review", Cleft Palate Craniofac J, 42, pp.145~156 (2005)[DOI]
- Farkas LG, "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, 30, pp.1~12 (1993)[DOI]
- Sharma VP, "Outcomes in facial aesthetics in cleft lip and palate surgery: a systematic review", J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg, 65, pp.1233~1245 (2012)[DOI]
- Tobiasen JM, "Facial impairment scales for clefts", Plast Reconstr Surg, 93, pp.31~41 (1994)[DOI]
- Chou PY, "Preoperative lip measurement in patients with complete unilateral cleft lip", palate and its comparison with norms, 2013, pp.66, 513~517
- Hakim SG, "Unilateral cleft lip", nose repair using an equal bows, J Craniomaxillofac Surg, pp.2014, 42[DOI]
- Kernahan DA, "A new classification for cleft lip and cleft palate", Plast Reconstr Surg Transplant Bull, 22, pp.435~441 (1958)[DOI]
- Kernahan DA, "The striped Y--a symbolic classification for cleft lip and palate", Plast Reconstr Surg, 47, pp.469~470 (1971)[DOI]
- Campbell A, "Cleft lip and palate surgery: an update of clinical outcomes for primary repair", Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am, 22, pp.43~58 (2010)[DOI]
- Kumar V, "Robbins and Cotran pathologic basis of disease", pp.113~117 (2005), Elsevier Saunders
- Clark RA, "The molecular and cellular biology of wound repair", pp.3~50 (1996), Plenum Press
- Amaratunga NA, "Combining Millard's and Cronin's methods of unilateral cleft lip repair - a comparative study", Asian J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 16, pp.5~9 (2004)[DOI]
- Hurwitz DJ, "Computer-assisted anthropometry for outcome assessment of cleft lip", Plast Reconstr Surg, 103, pp.1608~1623 (1999)[DOI]
- Millard DR, "Cleft craft: the evolution of its surgery: the unilateral deformity Vol. 1", pp.15~40 (1976), Little Brown
- Bilwatsch S, "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, 34, pp.253~262 (2006)[DOI]
- Xing H, "Changes in lip 1 year after modified Millard repair", Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 37, pp.117~122 (2008)[DOI]
- Chowdri NA, "A comparative study of surgical results with rotation-advancement and triangular flap techniques in unilateral cleft lip", Br J Plast Surg, 43, pp.551~556 (1990)[DOI]
- Sameh E, "Evaluation of primary unilateral cleft lip repair: a proposed scoring system", Egypt J Surg, 28, pp.4~7 (2009)
- Yamada T, "Threedimensional facial morphology, following primary cleft lip repair using the triangular flap with or without rotation advancement", J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 30, pp.337~342 (2002)[DOI]