B B Horswell1, O A Pospisil. 1. Interdisciplinary Craniofacial-Cleft Palate Center, University of Maryland, Baltimore 21201-1586, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Periosteal musculoaponeurotic (PMAS) reconstruction is a key objective in primary repair of the cleft lip. The reconstructed muscles provide a sound framework and stimulus for development of the nasolabial region. In this study two primary cleft lip repair techniques were retrospectively studied to determine if one [Delaire (Del)] which involves PMAS repair around the cleft results in more nasolabial symmetry than a technique that does not fully addressed the musculature [modified Rotation-Advancement, (mR-A)]. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four-and 5-year-old children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate were recalled for study (n = 33 children; Del group, 16; mR-A group, 17). Clinical and photographic records were obtained and anthropometric analyses determined for comparison between groups. RESULTS: In the mR-A group, noses had more asymmetrical tips, were shorter, projected less, and tended to be flatter or wider. Nasal indices tended to support these findings. Nasal height was similar for the mR-A and Del groups. When comparing cleft versus noncleft sides, alar width and length and nostril length were significantly different for both cleft groups. CONCLUSIONS: It appears from this study that reconstruction of the PMAS of the nasolabial region during primary cleft lip repair may positively influence growth and development of the nose in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients.
PURPOSE:Periosteal musculoaponeurotic (PMAS) reconstruction is a key objective in primary repair of the cleft lip. The reconstructed muscles provide a sound framework and stimulus for development of the nasolabial region. In this study two primary cleft lip repair techniques were retrospectively studied to determine if one [Delaire (Del)] which involves PMAS repair around the cleft results in more nasolabial symmetry than a technique that does not fully addressed the musculature [modified Rotation-Advancement, (mR-A)]. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four-and 5-year-old children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate were recalled for study (n = 33 children; Del group, 16; mR-A group, 17). Clinical and photographic records were obtained and anthropometric analyses determined for comparison between groups. RESULTS: In the mR-A group, noses had more asymmetrical tips, were shorter, projected less, and tended to be flatter or wider. Nasal indices tended to support these findings. Nasal height was similar for the mR-A and Del groups. When comparing cleft versus noncleft sides, alar width and length and nostril length were significantly different for both cleft groups. CONCLUSIONS: It appears from this study that reconstruction of the PMAS of the nasolabial region during primary cleft lip repair may positively influence growth and development of the nose in unilateral cleft lip and palatepatients.