Abstract
Aim
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.
Material and Methods
Patients with unilateral clefts of lip, alveolus, and palate who had undergone cleft lip and nose repair (from 2001 to 2018) 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.
Results
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.
Conclusions
Apparently better noses are to be found following either NAM or primary anterior rhinoplasty plus postoperative nasal stents. The latter seems to be particularly favorable and reduces the number of secondary interventions. Different techniques result in minor lip differences.
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.
Material and Methods
Patients with unilateral clefts of lip, alveolus, and palate who had undergone cleft lip and nose repair (from 2001 to 2018) 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.
Results
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.
Conclusions
Apparently better noses are to be found following either NAM or primary anterior rhinoplasty plus postoperative nasal stents. The latter seems to be particularly favorable and reduces the number of secondary interventions. Different techniques result in minor lip differences.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages | 7 |
Number of pages | 1 |
Publication status | Published - 3 Jun 2022 |
Event | 10th Congress of Baltic Association for Maxillofacial and Plastic Surgery and 16th Joint Symposium Riga-Rostock: Emerging Technologies in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery - Krogus iela 1, Zemgales priekšpilsēta, Rīga, LV-1048, Rīga, Latvia Duration: 3 Jun 2022 → 4 Jun 2022 Conference number: 10 https://meetinghand.com/e/bamps2022 |
Congress
Congress | 10th Congress of Baltic Association for Maxillofacial and Plastic Surgery and 16th Joint Symposium Riga-Rostock |
---|---|
Abbreviated title | BAMPS 2022 |
Country/Territory | Latvia |
City | Rīga |
Period | 3/06/22 → 4/06/22 |
Other | 10th BAMPS Congress and16th Joint Symposium Riga-Rostock |
Internet address |
Field of Science*
- 3.2 Clinical medicine
Publication Type*
- 3.4. Other publications in conference proceedings (including local)