Reference photographs for nasolabial appearance rating in unilateral cleft lip and palate

Psychological status as a function of residual scarring and facial asymmetry after surgical repair of cleft lip and palate

Objective : Objective measure of scarring and three-dimensional (3D) facial asymmetry after surgical correction of unilateral cleft lip (UCL) and unilateral cleft lip (UCLP). It was hypothesized that the degree of scarring or asymmetry would be correlated with poorer psychological function. Design : In a cross-sectional design, children underwent 3D imaging of the face and completed standardized assessments of self-esteem, depression, and state and trait anxiety. Parents rated children's adjustment with a standard scale. Setting : Glasgow Dental School, School of Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences. Patients : Fifty-one children aged 10 years with UCLP and 43 with UCL were recruited from the cohort treated with the surgical protocol of the CLEFTSIS managed clinical network in Scotland. Methods : Objective assessment to determine the luminance and redness of the scar and facial asymmetry. Depression, anxiety, and a self-esteem assessment battery were used for the psychological analysis. Results : Cleft cases showed superior psychological adjustment when compared with normative data. Prevalence of depression matched the population norm. The visibility of the scar (luminance ratio) was significantly correlated with lower self-esteem and higher trait anxiety in UCLP children (P  =  .004). Similar but nonsignificant trends were seen in the UCL group. Parental ratings of poorer adjustment also correlated with greater luminance of the scar. Conclusions : The objectively defined degree of postoperative cleft scarring was associated with subclinical symptoms of anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem.

Rhinoplasty for cleft and hemangioma-related nasal deformities

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide a concise review of recent articles on rhinoplasty approaches for cleft nasal deformity and nasal hemangiomas published in 2008-2010.

RECENT FINDINGS

Cleft nasal deformity rhinoplasty approaches have undergone further refinements as well as new development in techniques and surgical principles to minimize recurrent cleft nasal deformities. There is a paucity of studies addressing cleft septal deformity although there appears to be a greater emphasis on functional outcome in cleft rhinoplasty. Complications from primary cleft rhinoplasty and presurgical nasoalveolar molding were also reported. Similarly, nasal hemangioma rhinoplasty approaches have undergone further modifications with open rhinoplasty and subunit approaches gaining wider acceptance.

SUMMARY

There are several new studies that compare different rhinoplasty techniques to determine which approaches offer superior surgical outcomes; however, there needs to be a greater acceptance of objective measurements when assessing surgical results to identify a uniform surgical protocol and technique for both cleft rhinoplasty and nasal hemangiomas.

The Americleft study: an inter-center study of treatment outcomes for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate part 4. Nasolabial aesthetics

OBJECTIVE

To compare the nasolabial aesthetics for individuals with nonsyndromic complete unilateral cleft lip and palate between the ages of 5 and 12 years.

DESIGN

Retrospective cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Four cleft centers in North America.

SUBJECTS

A total of 124 subjects with repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate who were treated at the four centers.

METHODS

After ethics approval was obtained, 124 preorthodontic frontal and profile patient images were scanned, cropped to show the nose and upper lip, and coded. Using the coded images, four nasolabial features that reflect aesthetics (i.e., nasal symmetry, nasal form, vermilion border, and nasolabial profile) were rated by five examiners using the rating system reported by Asher-McDade et al. (1991) . Intrarater and interrater reliabilities were determined using weighted kappa statistics. Mean ratings, by center, were compared using analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Intrarater reliability scores were good to very good and interrater reliability scores were moderate to good. Total nasolabial scores were Center B = 2.98, Center C = 3.02, Center D = 2.80, and Center E = 2.87. No statistically significant differences among centers were detected for both total aesthetic scores and for any of the individual aesthetic components.

CONCLUSION

There were no significant differences in nasolabial aesthetics among the centers evaluated. Overall good to fair nasolabial aesthetic results were achieved using the different treatment protocols in the four North American centers.