BACKGROUND: While there are internationally validated outcome measures for speech and facial growth in cleft lip and palate patients, there is no such internationally accepted system for assessing outcomes in facial aesthetics. METHOD: A systematic critical review of the scientific literature from the last 30 years using PUBMED, Medline and Google Scholar was conducted in-line with the PRISMA statement recommendations. This encompassed the most relevant manuscripts on aesthetic outcomes in cleft surgery in the English language. RESULTS: Fifty-three articles were reviewed. Four main means of determining outcome measures were found: direct clinical assessment, clinical photograph evaluation, clinical videographic assessment and three-dimensional evaluation. Cropped photographs were more representative than full face. Most techniques were based on a 5-point scale, evolving from the Asher-McDade system. Multiple panel-based assessments compared scores from lay or professional raters, the results of which were not statistically significant. Various reports based on cohorts were poorly matched for gender, age, clinical condition and ethnicity, making their results difficult to reproduce. CONCLUSIONS: The large number of outcome measure rating systems identified, suggests a lack of consensus and confidence as to a reliable, validated and reproducible scoring system for facial aesthetics in cleft patients. Many template and lay panel scoring systems are described, yet never fully validated. Advanced 3D imaging technologies may produce validated outcome measures in the future, but presently there remains a need to develop a robust method of facial aesthetic evaluation based on standardised patient photographs. We make recommendations for the development of such a system.
BACKGROUND: While there are internationally validated outcome measures for speech and facial growth in cleft lip and palatepatients, there is no such internationally accepted system for assessing outcomes in facial aesthetics. METHOD: A systematic critical review of the scientific literature from the last 30 years using PUBMED, Medline and Google Scholar was conducted in-line with the PRISMA statement recommendations. This encompassed the most relevant manuscripts on aesthetic outcomes in cleft surgery in the English language. RESULTS: Fifty-three articles were reviewed. Four main means of determining outcome measures were found: direct clinical assessment, clinical photograph evaluation, clinical videographic assessment and three-dimensional evaluation. Cropped photographs were more representative than full face. Most techniques were based on a 5-point scale, evolving from the Asher-McDade system. Multiple panel-based assessments compared scores from lay or professional raters, the results of which were not statistically significant. Various reports based on cohorts were poorly matched for gender, age, clinical condition and ethnicity, making their results difficult to reproduce. CONCLUSIONS: The large number of outcome measure rating systems identified, suggests a lack of consensus and confidence as to a reliable, validated and reproducible scoring system for facial aesthetics in cleftpatients. Many template and lay panel scoring systems are described, yet never fully validated. Advanced 3D imaging technologies may produce validated outcome measures in the future, but presently there remains a need to develop a robust method of facial aesthetic evaluation based on standardised patient photographs. We make recommendations for the development of such a system.
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