Literature DB >> 12172130

Assessment of bilateral cleft lip nose deformity: a comparison of results as judged by cleft surgeons and laypersons.

Lun-Jou Lo1, Fen-Hwa Wong, Samir Mardini, Yu-Ray Chen, M Samuel Noordhoff.   

Abstract

Reconstruction of bilateral cleft lip nose deformity is difficult and the outcome is inconsistent. This study was conducted to evaluate the gross outcome and the difference in the assessment of nasal appearance as judged by two groups of raters, cleft surgeons and laypersons. Sixty-four patients with bilateral cleft lip were selected for review. The patients' ages ranged from 5 to 30 years. All patients had undergone primary cleft lip repair and secondary nasal reconstruction, and had been followed for at least 6 months. One image for each patient, which included a digitized frontal, lateral, and worm's-eye view, was projected for evaluation by the raters. The raters included five cleft surgeons and five laypersons. A rating scheme was used in which a score of 3 was given for a good, close to normal nasal appearance, 2 for an average result that needed minor revision, and 1 for a poor result that needed major reconstruction. The scores were averaged for each patient in each group and for each group as a whole. The final outcome was judged as good, fair, or poor on the basis of the mean score for each patient. Statistical analysis was performed. The mean score for all patients was 2.08 as assessed by the laypersons and 2.18 as assessed by the cleft surgeon group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Comparisons on rating scores among different raters revealed a fair agreement on the ratings within each of the two groups. The results were found to be good in 29.7 percent, fair in 64.1 percent, and poor in 6.3 percent of patients when evaluated by the surgeons. When rated by the laypersons, the nasal appearance was found to be good in 26.6 percent, fair in 60.9 percent, and poor in 12.5 percent of patients. This difference in distribution between the two groups was not statistically significant. When comparing the results given by the two groups of assessors, there was agreement on the nasal appearance in 65.6 percent of patients, and a difference in grading in the rest. For the patients who received different grading, the surgeons rated them one grade higher in 63.6 percent and one grade lower in 36.4 percent. There was no difference in grading between any of the evaluators that reflected a two-grade discrepancy in evaluation of results. This study shows that the surgical outcome of bilateral cleft lip nose deformity repair, at the authors' institution, is less than optimal. When assessing bilateral cleft lip nose appearance, the judgment of results by cleft surgeons was similar to that of the laypersons. However, different rating of results existed within each of the two groups, supporting the importance of clearly assessing patient/parent expectations and defining realistic surgical goals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12172130     DOI: 10.1097/00006534-200209010-00001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  10 in total

1.  Influence of objective three-dimensional measures and movement images on surgeon treatment planning for lip revision surgery.

Authors:  Carroll-Ann Trotman; Ceib Phillips; Julian J Faraway; Terry Hartman; John A van Aalst
Journal:  Cleft Palate Craniofac J       Date:  2013-07-15

2.  Aesthetic outcome and the need for revision of unilateral cleft lip repair at Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital.

Authors:  A A Oti; S Obiri-Yeboah; P Donkor
Journal:  Ghana Med J       Date:  2014-03

3.  A Cross-sectional Comparison of Cleft Lip Severity in 3 Regional Populations.

Authors:  Alexis Caitlin Lanteri; Bertrand William Parcells; Ana Karina Lizarraga; William Magee; Luis Bermudez
Journal:  Eplasty       Date:  2012-02-03

4.  Evaluation of facial appearance in patients with repaired cleft lip and palate: comparing the assessment of laypeople and healthcare professionals.

Authors:  Samar Alhayek; Mohammed Alsalem; Yazeed Alotaibi; Aamir Omair
Journal:  Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2019-02-06

5.  Philtral columns and nostril shapes in nigerian children: a morphometric and aesthetic analysis.

Authors:  Ibrahim Abdulrasheed; Asuku Malachy Eneye
Journal:  Plast Surg Int       Date:  2013-06-11

6.  Do cleft lip and palate patients opt for secondary corrective surgery of upper lip and nose, frequently?

Authors:  Emeka Nkenke; Florian Stelzle; Elefterios Vairaktaris; Christian Knipfer
Journal:  Head Face Med       Date:  2013-12-09       Impact factor: 2.151

7.  Structural outcomes in the Cleft Care UK study. Part 2: dento-facial outcomes.

Authors:  R Al-Ghatam; T E M Jones; A J Ireland; N E Atack; O Chawla; S Deacon; L Albery; A R M Cobb; J Cadogan; S Leary; A Waylen; A K Wills; B Richard; H Bella; A R Ness; J R Sandy
Journal:  Orthod Craniofac Res       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 1.826

8.  Comparison of professional and laypeople evaluation of nasolabial esthetics following unilateral cleft lip repair.

Authors:  Adekunle Moses Adetayo; Modupe Olusola Adetayo; Oguntade Funmi A; Mayowa Solomon Somoye; Michael O Adeyemi; Wasiu Lanre Adeyemo
Journal:  Eur J Dent       Date:  2018 Oct-Dec

9.  Long-Term Nasal Growth after Primary Rhinoplasty for Bilateral Cleft Lip Nose Deformity: A Three-Dimensional Photogrammetric Study with Comparative Analysis.

Authors:  Hyung Joon Seo; Rafael Denadai; Lun-Jou Lo
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2019-05-01       Impact factor: 4.241

10.  Outcome of facial contour asymmetry after conventional two-dimensional versus computer-assisted three-dimensional planning in cleft orthognathic surgery.

Authors:  Po-Jung Hsu; Rafael Denadai; Betty C J Pai; Hsiu-Hsia Lin; Lun-Jou Lo
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-02-11       Impact factor: 4.379

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.