The effects of lip revision surgery on nasolabial esthetics in patients with cleft lip

The Fisher Subunit Anatomical Approach for Cleft Lip Revisions: An Evolution and Case Series

ABSTRACT

Many techniques exist to reapproximate a cleft lip but can leave unsatisfactory results with nonanatomic scars and a short upper lip, creating a need for revision. Many revisions focus on adjacent tissue transfers and realignment of landmarks, but in the senior authors' experience, recreating the defect and utilizing the Fisher repair for revision have led to aesthetically pleasing results and less noticeable scars. A database was collected that included all cleft lip revisions performed at a large, comprehensive children's hospital from October 2018 to July 2021. Inclusion criteria included any cleft patient with a cleft lip revision performed by two craniofacial surgeons. Data collected included sex, characteristics of the cleft lip, age at initial and index repair, type of initial repair, previous revisions, type of revision with any additional tissue rearrangement, and any nose repair. Sixty-five patients were included in the study for analysis. The type of initial repair was known in sixty-four cases (98%), and fifty-four were Millard repairs (83%). Twenty-two patients (33%) had a previous revision prior to their index revision. Sixty patients (92%) underwent the Fisher repair technique for their index revision and forty-six patients (70%) underwent nasal revision. In follow-up, all patients demonstrated an improvement in lip aesthetics. This study demonstrates a large subset of patients that have undergone cleft lip revision using the Fisher technique. In the senior surgeons' experience, the Fisher repair technique in the setting of cleft lip revision is an ideal way to address the shortcomings of historical repair techniques.

A Prospective Study to Examine Responsiveness and Minimally Important Differences (MIDs) for the CLEFT-Q Scales Following Three Cleft-Specific Operations

The aim of this study was to examine internal responsiveness and estimate minimally important differences (MIDs) for CLEFT-Q scales.

In this prospective cohort study, participants completed the CLEFT-Q appearance and health-related quality of life (HRQL) scales before and six months after cleft-related surgery.

Seven cleft centres in Canada, USA and UK participated.

Patients were ages 8-29 years with CL/P.

Patients underwent rhinoplasty, orthognathic or cleft lip scar revision surgery.

Internal responsiveness was examined using Cohen's d effect sizes (ESs) based on the following interpretation: 0.20-0.49 small, 0.50-0.79 moderate and ≥ 0.80 large. MIDs were estimated using two distribution-based approaches.

Participants had a rhinoplasty (n = 31), orthognathic (n = 21) or cleft lip scar revision (n = 18) surgery. Most participants were males (56%) and aged 8-11 years (41%). Following rhinoplasty, ESs were larger for the nose (0.92, p = 0.001) and nostrils (0.94, p < 0.001) scales than for the face scale (0.51, p = 0.003). MIDs ranged between 6.2-10.4. For orthognathic surgery, larger ES was observed for the jaws scale (1.80, p < 0.001) compared with the teeth (1.16, p < 0.001), face (1.15, p = 0.001) and lips (0.94, p < 0.001) scales. MIDs ranged between 5.9-14.4. In the cleft lip scar revision sample, the largest ES was observed for the nose scale (0.76, p = 0.03), followed by lips (0.58, p = 0.009) and cleft lip scar (0.50, p = 0.043) scales. MIDs ranged between 6.4-12.3.

CLEFT-Q detected change in key outcomes for three cleft-specific surgeries, providing evidence of its responsiveness. Estimated MIDs will aid in interpreting this PROM.

Health-Related Quality of Life and the Desire for Revision Surgery Among Children With Cleft Lip and Palate

PURPOSE

Children with cleft lip with or without palate (CLCP) require multiple reconstructive procedures, however, little is known about their desire for surgical revision. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and the desire for revision.

METHODS

The authors surveyed children with CLCP (n = 71) and their caregivers regarding general and cleft-specific HRQOL and the desire for revision surgery. The authors used logistic regression models to evaluate the relationship between HRQOL and the desire for revision stratified by age, and determined the level of agreement between caregivers and children.

RESULTS

In this cohort, 54.9% of children desired revision, primarily of the nose (n = 23), lip (n = 20), and dentoalveolar structures (n = 19). Children 11 years or older were more likely to desire revision than younger children (OR 3.39, 95% CI [1.19, 9.67], P <0.05). Children who reported poorer HRQOL with respect to appearance (OR 2.31, 95% CI [1.25-4.29], P = 0.008), social development (OR 0.91, 95% CI [0.84-0.99], P = 0.02), and communication (OR 0.94, 95% CI [0.89-0.99], P = 0.02) were significantly more likely to desire revision than children who reported more positive HRQOL. Caregivers' and children's desires for revision were only modestly correlated (r = 0.41).

CONCLUSIONS

Children with CLCP who report poorer HRQOL are more likely to desire revision than children with higher HRQOL; these differences are further magnified among older children. Given the modest correlation between patient and caregiver goals for revision, it is important to evaluate both perspectives when considering revision surgery.

The Americleft Project: Burden of Care from Secondary Surgery

Background:

The burden of care for children with cleft lip and palate extends beyond primary repair. Children may undergo multiple secondary surgeries to improve appearance or speech. The purpose of this study was to compare the use of secondary surgery between cleft centers.

Methods:

This retrospective cohort study included 130 children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate treated consecutively at 4 cleft centers in North America. Data were collected on all lip, palate, and nasal surgeries. Nasolabial appearance was rated by a panel of judges using the Asher-McDade scale. Risk of secondary surgery was compared between centers using the log-rank test, and hazard ratios estimated with a Cox proportional hazards model.

Results:

Median follow-up was 18 years (interquartile range, 15–19). There were significant differences among centers in the risks of secondary lip surgery (P < 0.001) and secondary rhinoplasty (P < 0.001). The cumulative risk of secondary lip surgery by 10 years of age ranged from 5% to 60% among centers. The cumulative risk of secondary rhinoplasty by 20 years of age ranged from 47% to 79% among centers. No significant differences in nasolabial appearance were found between children who underwent secondary lip or nasal surgery and children who underwent only primary surgery (P > 0.10).

Conclusions:

Although some cleft centers were significantly more likely to perform secondary surgery, the use of secondary surgery did not achieve significantly better nasolabial appearance than what was achieved by children who underwent only primary surgery.