Critical analysis of consecutive unilateral cleft lip repairs: determining ideal sample size

Aesthetic evaluation of the nasolabial region in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate comparing expert versus nonexperience health professionals

Esthetic evaluation of cleft lip and palate rehabilitation outcomes may assist in the determination of new surgical interventions and aid in reevaluation of treatment protocols. Our objective was to compare esthetics assessments of the nasolabial region in children with a unilateral cleft lip and palate between healthcare professionals who were experienced in the treatment of cleft lip and palate and those who were inexperienced. The study group included 55 patients between 6 and 12 years of age who had already undergone primary reconstructive surgery for unilateral cleft lip. Standardized digital photographs were obtained, and the esthetic features of the nose, lip, and nasolabial region were evaluated. We used only cropped photographic images in the assessments of healthcare professionals with and without experience in cleft lip and palate. Interrater analysis revealed highly reliable assessments made by both the experienced and inexperienced professionals. There was no statistically significant difference in the esthetic attractiveness of the lip and nose between the experienced and inexperienced professionals. Compared with the inexperienced professionals, the experienced professional evaluators showed higher satisfaction with the esthetic appearance of the nasolabial region; however, no difference was observed in the analysis of the lip or nose alone.

Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal 50th anniversary editorial board commentary: anatomy, basic sciences, and genetics--then and now

To celebrate the 50th year of the Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal we look back to where we started in 1964 and where we are now, and we speculate about directions for the future in a "Then and Now" editorial series. This editorial examines changing trends and perspectives in anatomical, basic science, and genetic studies published in this 50-year interval. In volume 1 there were 45 total papers, seven (16%) of which were peer-reviewed basic science and genetic articles published: four in anatomy, three in craniofacial biology, and none in genetics. In contrast, in volume 50, of 113 articles there were 47 (42%) peer-reviewed basic science and genetic articles published: 30 in anatomy, five in craniofacial biology, and 12 in genetics. Topical analysis of published manuscripts then and now reveal that similar topics in anatomy and craniofacial biology are still being researched today (e.g., phenotypic variability, optimal timing of surgery, presurgical orthopedics, bone grafting); whereas, most of the more recent papers use advanced technology to address old questions. In contrast, genetic publications have clearly increased in frequency during the last 50 years, which parallels advances in the field during this time. However, all of us have noticed that the more "cutting-edge" papers in these areas are not being submitted for publication to the journal, but instead to discipline-specific journals. Concerted efforts are therefore indicated to attract and publish these cutting-edge papers in order to keep the Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal in the forefront of orofacial cleft and craniofacial anomaly research and to provide a valuable service to American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association members.