Percy Rossell-Perry1,2. 1. Edgardo Rebagliatti Hospital. 2. Post Graduate Studies Department, Faculty of Medicine, San Martin de Porres University, Lima, Peru.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study represents a single surgeon's 10 years of experience addressing unilateral cleft lip and palate nose deformity. The purpose was to compare surgical outcomes and related complications using 3 different techniques to improve nasal shape in primary unilateral cleft rhinoplasty. METHODS: This retrospective study with Institutional Ethical Committee approval compares 3 groups of patients with unilateral cleft lip nose and palate who were operated on using different techniques from 2007 to 2017. Surgical outcomes were analyzed by physical examination at least 1 year after primary rhinoplasty. Anthropometric measurements were obtained for the cleft and noncleft sides of the nose. RESULTS: Approach with general analysis indicated differences among the 3 techniques. The author's comparative study revealed differences in nose symmetry and related complications, including increased recurrence of nose deformity using the modified McComb technique. Better short-term nose symmetry was observed using Potter technique and the V-Y-Z rhinoplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Potter approach and the V-Y-Z techniques achieve better short-term nose symmetry than the McComb method. Complications were less common in the group of patients operated on using the modified McComb technique. Additional studies are required to evaluate functional and long-term outcomes after primary rhinoplasty using the proposed methods.
BACKGROUND: This study represents a single surgeon's 10 years of experience addressing unilateral cleft lip and palate nose deformity. The purpose was to compare surgical outcomes and related complications using 3 different techniques to improve nasal shape in primary unilateral cleft rhinoplasty. METHODS: This retrospective study with Institutional Ethical Committee approval compares 3 groups of patients with unilateral cleft lip nose and palate who were operated on using different techniques from 2007 to 2017. Surgical outcomes were analyzed by physical examination at least 1 year after primary rhinoplasty. Anthropometric measurements were obtained for the cleft and noncleft sides of the nose. RESULTS: Approach with general analysis indicated differences among the 3 techniques. The author's comparative study revealed differences in nose symmetry and related complications, including increased recurrence of nose deformity using the modified McComb technique. Better short-term nose symmetry was observed using Potter technique and the V-Y-Z rhinoplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Potter approach and the V-Y-Z techniques achieve better short-term nose symmetry than the McComb method. Complications were less common in the group of patients operated on using the modified McComb technique. Additional studies are required to evaluate functional and long-term outcomes after primary rhinoplasty using the proposed methods.