Aesthetics Assessment and Patient Reported Outcome of Nasolabial Aesthetics in 18-Year-Old Patients With Unilateral Cleft Lip.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if there is a correlation between objective nasolabial aesthetics assessment using the Cleft Aesthetic Rating Scale (CARS) and patient satisfaction. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a generic satisfaction questionnaire and independent assessment by three cleft surgeons of the nasolabial area of these patients on 2D frontal photographs, using the CARS. SETTING: The Vrije Universiteit Medical Center and The Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam. PATIENTS: Thirty-nine 18-year old patients with a repaired complete or incomplete unilateral cleft lip, with or without a cleft palate, and a completed satisfaction questionnaire. Exclusion criteria were an incomplete questionnaire; a history of facial trauma; and congenital syndromes affecting facial appearance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The correlation between surgeon evaluation (on a 5-point Likert scale) and patient satisfaction (not, moderately or very satisfied) on nasolabial appearance was assessed using Spearman rho (ρ). RESULTS: There was a negligible correlation between surgeon evaluation and patient satisfaction on nose assessment (ρ = 0.20) and a moderate correlation on lip assessment (ρ = 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Most literature supports this discrepancy between different objective aesthetics evaluation methods and subjective patient-reported outcome measures, suggesting there are factors playing a role in patient satisfaction that are impossible to objectify with assessment methods. Therefore, a strong emphasis should remain on clear communication between the physician and patient regarding their expectations, perception, and satisfaction of surgery results.

Rating Nasolabial Aesthetics in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patients: Cropped Versus Full-Face Images.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if cropping facial images affects nasolabial aesthetics assessments in unilateral cleft lip patients and to evaluate the effect of facial attractiveness on nasolabial evaluation. DESIGN: Two cleft surgeons and one cleft orthodontist assessed standardized frontal photographs 4 times; nasolabial aesthetics were rated on cropped and full-face images using the Cleft Aesthetic Rating Scale, and total facial attractiveness was rated on full-face images with and without the nasolabial area blurred using a 5-point Likert scale. SETTING: Cleft Palate Craniofacial Unit of a University Medical Center. PATIENTS: Inclusion criteria: nonsyndromic unilateral cleft lip and an available frontal view photograph around 10 years of age. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: a history of facial trauma and an incomplete cleft. Eighty-one photographs were available for assessment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Differences in mean CARS scores between cropped versus full-face photographs and attractive versus unattractive rated patients were evaluated by paired t test. RESULTS: Nasolabial aesthetics are scored more negatively on full-face photographs compared to cropped photographs, regardless of facial attractiveness. (Mean CARS score, nose: cropped = 2.8, full-face = 3.0, P < .001; lip: cropped = 2.4, full-face = 2.7, P < .001; nose and lip: cropped = 2.6, full-face = 2.8, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Aesthetic outcomes of the nasolabial area are assessed significantly more positively when using cropped images compared to full-face images. For this reason, cropping images, revealing the nasolabial area only, is recommended for aesthetical assessments.

Comparison of two- and three-dimensional assessment methods of nasolabial appearance in cleft lip and palate patients: Do the assessment methods measure the same outcome?

OBJECTIVE: For the assessment of the nasolabial appearance in cleft patients, a widely accepted, reliable scoring system is not available. In this study four different methods of assessment are compared, including 2D and 3D asymmetry and aesthetic assessments. METHODS: The data and ratings from an earlier study using the Asher-McDade aesthetic index on 3D photographs and the outcomes of 3D facial distance mapping were compared to a 2D aesthetic assessment, the Cleft Aesthetic Rating Scale, and to SymNose, a computerized 2D asymmetry assessment technique. The reliability and correlation between the four assessment techniques were tested using a sample of 79 patients. RESULTS: The 3D asymmetry assessment had the highest reliability and could be performed by just one observer (Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC): 0.99). The 2D asymmetry assessment of the nose was highly reliable when performed by just one observer (ICC: 0.89). However, for the 2D asymmetry assessment of the lip more observers were needed. For the 2D aesthetic assessments 3 observers were needed. The 3D aesthetic assessment had the lowest single-observer reliability (ICC: 0.38-0.56) of all four techniques. The agreement between the different assessment methods is poor to very poor. The highest correlation (R: 0.48) was found between 2D and 3D aesthetic assessments. Remarkably, the lowest correlations were found between 2D and 3D asymmetry assessments (0.08-0.17). CONCLUSION: Different assessment methods are not in agreement and seem to measure different nasolabial aspects. More research is needed to establish exactly what each assessment technique measures and which measurements or outcomes are relevant for the patients.