Degree of Asymmetry Between Patients With Complete and Incomplete Cleft Lips

The Preservation Technique for Incomplete Unilateral Cleft Lip Reconstruction

The incomplete unilateral cleft lip shares many of the same phenotypic characteristics as a complete unilateral cleft lip, but key differences include an intact nasal sill, a relative excess of skin in the lateral lip element, and favorable skeletal support. Surgical techniques for incomplete unilateral cleft lips should be tailored to the specific anatomical characteristics, be simple and reliable to perform, and minimize the risk of secondary deformity. Here we describe the "preservation technique" for incomplete unilateral cleft lip reconstruction. The modified design from the anatomical subunit approximation technique uses a nasal sill flap and obviates the need for nasal sill and lateral lip excision. Tissues of the lip are opened out and reorientated to maximize the anatomical advantage.

Philtral Height Discrepancy in Patients with Complete and Incomplete Cleft Lips + /-Palate - Results from a Single Nation Consecutive Cohort

INTRODUCTION

The aim of unilateral cleft lip repair is to restore form and function, including symmetrisation of cleft and non-cleft philtral height. Expectation of best outcome is achieved in situations with minimal asymmetry and is assumed occurs most often in incomplete cleft lip only patients. We sought to investigate philtral height discrepancy (PHD) in children with unilateral cleft lip + /-palate from a single nation cohort.

METHODS

Review of prospectively collected PHD measurements taken at time of surgery for all children undergoing unilateral cleft lip repair in Scotland born Jan 2017-December 2020. Data was collected using Microsoft Excel and analysed using embedded statistical software.

RESULTS

102 consecutive patients with unilateral lip involvement were identified from the national database. 94 had prospectively documented PHD (92.2%). The majority of patients had an isolated cleft lip (51.1%). Incomplete clefts presented more frequently (52.1%) than complete clefts (47.9%). Mean PHD for the whole cohort was 3.91mm (standard deviation 1.01mm, range 1-6mm). The difference in mean PHD (in-complete versus complete) was 1.1mm (3.4 vs. 4.5, p < 0.001). For lip only versus lip and palate the difference in mean PHD was 1.0mm (3.4 vs. 4.4, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This single country consecutive cohort review of PHD in children undergoing unilateral cleft lip repair statistically supports the anecdote that patients with an incomplete cleft lip and isolated cleft lip have lesser asymmetry at presentation. This study presents a consecutive cohort with a greater range of PHD than has previously been reported in the literature.