An Intercenter Comparison of Nasolabial Appearance Including a Center Using Nasoalveolar Molding

Effects of nasoalveolar molding on nasolabial aesthetics in patients with cleft lip and palate during pre-adolescence: A systematic review and meta-analysis of retrospective studies

This study aims to analyze long-term effects of nasoalveolar molding (NAM) as a part of cleft primary management protocols on nasolabial aesthetics for patients with non-syndromic cleft lip and palate by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. Six electronic databases and two journals were searched up to July 2023. Studies comparing nasolabial outcomes between NAM and non-NAM protocols were selected for further analysis. Nasolabial aesthetics were the outcome of interest. Data extraction, methodological quality assessment, risk of bias assessment, meta-analysis and subgroup analysis were performed. Seven retrospective cohort studies were selected for a qualitative review and four for a quantitative analysis. The risk of bias assessment was moderate for most studies. Only studies utilizing the Asher-McDade rating (AMR) were included for meta-analyses. The protocols with NAM exhibited a significantly lower AMR score for vermillion border than other protocols. AMR scores for nasal form and nasal symmetry from protocols with NAM were significantly lower than protocols without any pre-surgical infant orthopaedics (PSIO) but not significantly different from protocols with other PSIO techniques. The AMR score for nasolabial profile from protocols with NAM was not significantly different from other protocols. However, subgroup analysis demonstrated that protocol combining NAM and primary rhinoplasty significantly lowered AMR scores for nasal form, nasal symmetry and nasolabial profile. For patients with unilateral cleft lip with or without palate (UCLP), this study found that a protocol combining NAM and primary rhinoplasty improved nasolabial outcomes while a protocol with NAM alone offered only limited benefits. For patients with BCLP, the available evidence remains inconclusive. Performing NAM in combination with primary rhinoplasty improves nasolabial aesthetics in patients with UCLP. PROSPERO (CRD4202128384).

Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal of the Evidence Base for Nasoalveolar Molding (NAM)

OBJECTIVE

To critically appraise the body of scientific literature supporting the risks and efficacy of nasoalveolar molding (NAM), specifically in contrast to alternative methods of presurgical infant orthopedics (PSIO) or to treatment without PSIO.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Five outcome domains were considered: nasolabial aesthetics; dentoalveolar relationship; midfacial growth; cost and burden of care; and number of anesthetic events.

DESIGN

MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were queried for articles from the first description of the Grayson-Santiago NAM technique (1993) through December 13, 2021. After the application of inclusionary and exclusionary criteria, selected articles were critically appraised using a systematic framework that included risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools.

RESULTS

A total of 88 studies were included. Level-I and -II evidence showed on par or better approximation and alveolar alignment achieved by NAM compared to other PSIO. Level-II and -III evidence showed improved nasolabial aesthetics compared to other PSIOs. Level-II and -III evidence supported no harm to maxillofacial skeletal growth through age 12. Sparse level-III evidence supported a reduced number of labial or nasal revisions following NAM. Level-II and -III evidence showed NAM requiring upfront cost and frequent appointments but reducing caregiver psychosocial burden and reducing long-term costs compared to select alternatives. Many studies carried a high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence supports the overall efficacy of NAM regarding short/mid-term outcomes, with a low risk of negative effects on midfacial growth or dental development. The high risk of bias discovered in many papers underscores the need for robust study design in future research.

Lips and noses in 10-year old patients with repaired complete unilateral clefts of lip, alveolus, and palate. A prospective three-centre study of the Baltic Cleft Network

This multicenter study aimed at comparing different techniques of lip and nose repair with or without NAM and primary anterior rhinoplasty in pre-adolescent children. Patients with unilateral clefts of lip, alveolus, and palate who had undergone cleft lip and nose repair were evaluated in a prospective three-centre study using standardized monochromatic, cropped photographs. Four cleft surgeons evaluated the aesthetics of the central part of the face when the patients had reached age ten years. Seventy-six sets of photographs out of 87 patients were evaluated. The overall ratings of lips and noses did not differ much between centres. However, noses of centres 1 (mean 0.74; SD 0.57) and 2 (mean 0.76; SD 0.60) had been rated better than centre 3 (mean 1.32; SD 0.78; p = 0.0078), especially "Deformation of upper part of nostril rim or poor position of alar cartilage". Centre 3 had produced better looking scars (mean 0.33; SD 0.48); p = 0.0036. Within the limitations of the study it seems that NAM and primary anterior rhinoplasty including postoperative nasal stents should be performed whenever possible in order to achieve a favorable shape of the nose and to reduce the need for secondary corrective surgery.

A Comparative Assessment of Nasal Appearance following Nasoalveolar Molding and Primary Surgical Repair for Treatment of Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate

BACKGROUND

Although many cleft teams have adopted nasoalveolar molding to improve nasal form, few comparative studies have assessed the postoperative benefits of this treatment. Given that reported outcomes have been contradictory and that treatment involves considerable burden to families, the purpose of this study was to assess objective and subjective changes from nasoalveolar molding at approximately 5 years of age.

METHODS

All patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate who underwent primary cheiloplasty performed by a single surgeon over a 7-year period were reviewed. Patient results were grouped into nasoalveolar molding or no-nasoalveolar molding. Cleft severity and aesthetic outcomes were assessed by panels of raters who independently ranked subject images at presentation, immediately preoperative (after molding), and at 5-year follow-up. Objective symmetry was measured using standard anthropometric analysis on three-dimensional images.

RESULTS

Among 41 patients included, 16 successfully completed nasoalveolar molding. Both groups were similar at presentation; however, the nasoalveolar molding group had improved appearance following molding (p < 0.05). After surgery, at 5 years of age, the nasoalveolar molding group had better rank scores for overall appearance (p < 0.05), cleft nostril height, and cleft medial lip height (p < 0.05). Regression analysis revealed that nasoalveolar molding treatment was the most significant predictor of overall nasal appearance at 5 years, but that treatment team experience and initial severity were also significant predictors (p < 0.05). Qualitative audit following analysis identified favorable and unfavorable features of nasoalveolar molding.

CONCLUSION

In children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate, nasoalveolar molding was associated with better overall nasal aesthetics and improved cleft nostril height and cleft medial lip height at approximately 5 years of age.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Long-Term Comparison of the Aesthetic Outcomes between Nasoalveolar Molding- and Non-Nasoalveolar Molding-Treated Patients with Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate

BACKGROUND

The cleft lip-nose deformity in unilateral cleft lip and palate is one of the most challenging problem for surgeons to correct. Although nasoalveolar molding has been shown to be effective in improving presurgical symmetry in patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate, there is need for better evidence regarding the long-term nasolabial aesthetics of patients who have received this therapy.

METHODS

Thirty-eight patients treated with nasoalveolar molding and 48 patients not treated with nasoalveolar molding (but otherwise treated similarly) with unilateral cleft lip and palate were studied to assess and compare the nasolabial aesthetics. The objective evaluation of the nasal symmetry was performed on the basal view of two-dimensional photographs and the subjective nasolabial aesthetic evaluation was performed using the Asher-McDade scale.

RESULTS

At 5-year postoperative follow-up, nasoalveolar molding group patients had better mean values on the objective scores; however, these were not statically significant. The nasoalveolar molding group of patients had a statistically significant improvement in the subjective evaluation in comparison to the non-nasoalveolar molding-treated patients. The number of lip revisions was also statistically higher in the non-nasoalveolar molding-treated group of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective, single-center study, the authors found that at 5-year postoperative follow-up, nasoalveolar molding-treated patients had improved nasolabial aesthetics and fewer revision operations. These are, however, preliminary results and the patients will be followed up until the end of growth to assess the longer term effects of nasoalveolar molding on the nasolabial aesthetics in unilateral cleft lip and palate.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Time-Driven, Activity-Based Costing of Presurgical Infant Orthopedics: A Critical Component of Establishing Value of Latham Appliance and Nasoalveolar Molding

BACKGROUND

Value-based health-care reform requires assessment of outcomes and costs of medical interventions. In cleft care, presurgical infant orthopedics is still being evaluated for clinical benefits and risks; however, the cost of these procedures has been largely ignored. This study uses robust accounting methods to quantify the cost of providing two types of presurgical infant orthopedics: Latham appliance treatment and nasoalveolar molding.

METHODS

This is a prospective study of patients with nonsyndromic cleft lip and/or palate who underwent treatment with presurgical infant orthopedics from 2017 to 2019 at two academic centers. Costs were measured using time-driven activity-based costing. Personnel costs, facility costs (operating room, clinic, and inpatient ward), and equipment costs were included. Travel expenses were incorporated as an estimate of direct costs borne by the family, but indirect costs (e.g., time off from work) were not considered.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients were treated with Latham appliance treatment and 14 were treated with nasoalveolar molding. For Latham appliance treatment, average total cost was $7553 per patient ($1041 for personnel, $637 for equipment, $4871 for facility, and $1004 for travel over 6.5 visits). Unilateral and bilateral costs were $6891 and $8860, respectively. For nasoalveolar molding, average cost totaled $2541 ($364 for personnel, $151 for equipment, $300 for facility, and $1726 for travel over 13 visits); $2120 for unilateral and $3048 for bilateral treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The major difference in cost is attributable to operative placement of the Latham device. Travel cost for nasoalveolar molding is often higher because of frequent clinical encounters required. Future investigation should focus on whether outcomes achieved by presurgical infant orthopedics justify the $2100 to $8900 expenditure for these adjunctive procedures.

Long-Term Effects of Nasoalveolar Molding in Patients With Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate long-term treatment effects of nasoalveolar molding (NAM) in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP).

DESIGN

Included manuscripts met the following criteria: (1) involved patients with UCLP who received NAM; (2) included comparison group(s) who either received non-NAM passive presurgical infant orthopedic appliances (PSIO) or who did not receive any PSIO; (3) reported at least one objective or validated measure of nasolabial, craniofacial, or palatal form; and (4) had patient follow-up beyond 4 years of age.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies were included in this review. Meta-analyses were possible for Asher-McDade parameters and cephalometric measurements. Compared to patients who did not receive any PSIO, those who underwent NAM therapy were more likely to have good to excellent frontal nasal form (Risk ratio: 2.4, 95% CI: 1.24-3.68) and vermillion border (Risk ratio: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.19-2.71). However, there were no statistically significant differences in cephalometric measurements between these groups. Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences between patients receiving NAM versus non-NAM PSIO. There was insufficient evidence to determine the impact of NAM on dental arch development.

CONCLUSIONS

The preponderance of evidence in this review suggests that NAM produces benefits in nasolabial aesthetic form when compared with no appliance-based presurgical treatment. However, there is insufficient evidence to conclude whether NAM produces such benefits when compared with other passive PSIOs.

Sociodemographic Predictors of Treatment Success and Difficulty in Nasoalveolar Molding

OBJECTIVE

To assess social and demographic influences on caregiver success and difficulty with nasoalveolar molding (NAM).

DESIGN

Retrospective review identified patients who began NAM between April 22, 2013, and April 18, 2017, at the New York University Langone Medical Center. Records were reviewed, and the following sociodemographic data retrieved: parental marital status, parental ages, number of siblings, distance traveled to clinic, insurance coverage, concurrent medical conditions, and need for an interpreter.

PATIENTS

Patients were included if complete charting was available; 106 patients met the inclusion criteria; 79 patients with unilateral and 27 with bilateral clefts.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Chart entries indicating incorrect appliance usage, emergency visits, phone calls, and noncompliance were recorded. Alveolar cleft gap closure was measured on pre- and posttreatment models in unilateral cases. Multiple regression analyses were performed to assess the influence of social variables on these outcomes.

RESULTS

Alveolar cleft gap closure was 7.2 ± 3.0 mm, or 78.5% ± 19.1%. Cleft closure increased with paternal age by 0.33 mm (P = .007) or 2.0% (P = .017) per year, decreased with maternal age by 0.29 mm (P = .041) per year, and increased in married and partnered parents by 39% (P = .018). Incorrect appliance usage averaged 0.62 fewer instances for married and partnered parents (P = .018) and 0.43 fewer for those with private insurance (P = .019).

CONCLUSIONS

Alveolar cleft gap closure was more successful for older fathers, younger mothers, and married couples. Married couples were also less likely to experience treatment difficulties such as incorrect appliance usage or inadequate duration of wear, as were those with private insurance coverage.

The Surgical Nasoalveolar Molding: A Rational Treatment for Unilateral Cleft Lip Nose Deformity and Literature Review

The purposes of this study were to evaluate surgical outcomes after primary surgery to address unilateral cleft lip, nose, and palate deformities and to perform a review of the literature to evaluate the effects of nasoalveolar molding (NAM) plus primary surgical repair on nonsyndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate.

METHODS

A cohort study of 37 primary complete unilateral cleft lip nasal deformity repairs was performed by a single surgeon. The outcomes were anthropometric measurements of the repaired lip, nose, and alveolar cleft width at the age of 1 and 5 years. A review of the literature was performed for studies published until March 2020 to evaluate the effect of presurgical NAM on nasolabial aesthetics.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences were observed between pre- and postoperative columellar angle and alveolar cleft width. A total of 308 studies were identified, and 8 were included in the final analysis of 684 patients. The overall study quality was low according to the Oxford Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine, and GRADE level of evidence was low.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary cheilorhinoplasty alone is a good approach to improve nose appearance and alveolar gap in patients with unilateral cleft lip nose and palate deformity. Definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of presurgical NAM cannot be drawn. Available scientific evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that combined use of presurgical nasoalveolar molding and primary surgery provides better nasolabial aesthetic outcomes than does primary surgery alone.

Nasolabial outcomes in a nationwide study of orofacial cleft in New Zealand

OBJECTIVES

To (a) assess nasolabial outcomes across four main cleft subgroups, (b) assess agreement using a categorical and a continuous scoring measure and (c) compare outcomes to international studies.

SETTINGS AND SAMPLE POPULATION

Analysis of 470 images of which 218 was unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP), 128 unilateral cleft lip (UCL), 90 bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) and 34 bilateral cleft lip (BCL). Images were taken around five (n = 279) and eight-ten (n = 191) years of age.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Cropped images were assessed using the Asher-McDade (AM) and a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) by a panel of six raters. Scoring was undertaken for vermillion border and nasal form, symmetry and profile. Analysis was undertaken for each subscore, a total score with sensitivity analysis using a total score based on the subscores for each patient. AM intra- and inter-rater reliability was assessed using weighted kappa and for the VAS components reliability was assessed using Pearson correlation.

RESULTS

The AM intra-rater reliability was moderate/substantial, whilst inter-rater reliability was fair. The VAS intra-rater correlations were high, and inter-rater correlations were moderate. Better outcomes were found with cleft lip (CL) vs cleft lip and palate (CLP). No differences were found for sex, ethnicity, age and cleft laterality (unilateral). The AM found no difference between unilateral or bilateral. The VAS found bilateral scored worse than unilateral for both CL and CLP.

CONCLUSIONS

The nasolabial outcomes differ by cleft type. The correlation was relatively high for the VAS whilst the AM had relatively poor reliability.