Nasolabial Aesthetics Following Cleft Repair: An Objective Evaluation of Subjective Assessment.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the weight and contribution of each of the parameters of the Asher-McDade Scale to overall subjective assessment of nasolabial aesthetics following cleft lip repair. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort evaluation. SETTING: Cleft and craniofacial center. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-one patients who underwent unilateral cleft lip repair. INTERVENTIONS: Unilateral cleft lip repair. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Nasolabial rating using the Asher-McDade scale and overall subjective assessment of nasolabial aesthetics using a rank score following unilateral cleft lip repair. RESULTS: Strong interrater reliability was observed between the 3 raters. Significant association was determined on bivariate analysis between nasal form score (ß = 27.06; P < .001), nasal symmetry score (ß = 26.41; P < .001), nasal profile score (ß = 28.75; P < .001), vermilion border score (ß = 13.40; P = .012), and the ranking score. Adjusted ß coefficients obtained from multivariate regression analysis were used to develop a modified nasolabial appearance score (over 5), that is, weighted for each of the 4 parameters: nasal form (over 8, adjusted ß = 14.33), nasal symmetry (over 5, adjusted ß = 7.96), nasal profile (over 5, adjusted ß = 9.44), and vermilion (over 2, adjusted ß = 3.31). Regression analysis between our modified nasolabial appearance score and patient ranking score demonstrated superior goodness of fit when compared to the Asher-McDade overall nasolabial appearance score (R2 = .80; P < .001 vs R2 = .69; P < .001). CONCLUSION: The parameters evaluated in the Asher-McDade scale have different weights and contribute differently to overall subjective assessment of nasolabial aesthetic outcomes following cleft lip repair. Adjusting for their weights results in a modified score that demonstrates superior correlation with overall subjective assessment of nasolabial aesthetic outcomes.

The Drivers of Academic Success in Cleft and Craniofacial Centers: A 10-Year Analysis of over 2000 Publications.

BACKGROUND: Cleft and craniofacial centers require significant investment by medical institutions, yet variables contributing to their academic productivity remain unknown. This study characterizes the elements associated with high academic productivity in these centers. METHODS: The authors analyzed cleft and craniofacial centers accredited by the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association. Variables such as university affiliation; resident training; number of plastic surgery, oral-maxillofacial, and dental faculty; and investment in a craniofacial surgery, craniofacial orthodontics fellowship program, or both, were obtained. Craniofacial and cleft-related research published between July of 2005 and June of 2015 was identified. A stepwise multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to measure outcomes of total publications, summative impact factor, basic science publications, total journals, and National Institutes of Health funding. RESULTS: One hundred sixty centers were identified, comprising 920 active faculty, 34 craniofacial surgery fellowships, and eight craniofacial orthodontic fellowships; 2356 articles were published in 191 journals. Variables most positively associated with a high number of publications were craniofacial surgery and craniofacial orthodontics fellowships (ß = 0.608), craniofacial surgery fellowships (ß = 0.231), number of plastic surgery faculty (ß = 0.213), and university affiliation (ß = 0.165). Variables most positively associated with high a number of journals were craniofacial surgery and craniofacial orthodontics fellowships (ß = 0.550), university affiliation (ß = 0.251), number of plastic surgery faculty (ß = 0.230), and craniofacial surgery fellowship (ß = 0.218). Variables most positively associated with a high summative impact factor were craniofacial surgery and craniofacial orthodontics fellowships (ß = 0.648), craniofacial surgery fellowship (ß = 0.208), number of plastic surgery faculty (ß = 0.207), and university affiliation (ß = 0.116). Variables most positively associated with basic science publications were craniofacial surgery and craniofacial orthodontics fellowships (ß = 0.676) and craniofacial surgery fellowship (ß = 0.208). The only variable associated with National Institutes of Health funding was craniofacial surgery and craniofacial orthodontics fellowship (ß = 0.332). CONCLUSION: Participation in both craniofacial surgery and orthodontics fellowships demonstrates the strongest association with academic success; craniofacial surgery fellowship, university affiliation, and number of surgeons are also predictive.

Comparative Study of Early Secondary Nasal Revisions and Costs in Patients With Clefts Treated With and Without Nasoalveolar Molding.

The present study aims to determine the risk of early secondary nasal revisions in patients with complete unilateral and bilateral cleft lip and palate (U/BCLP) treated with and without nasoalveolar molding (NAM) and examine the associated costs of care. A retrospective cohort study from 1990 to 1999 was performed comparing the risk of early secondary nasal revision surgery in patients with a CLP treated with NAM and surgery (cleft lip repair and primary surgical nasal reconstruction) versus surgery alone in a private practice and tertiary level clinic. The NAM treatment group consisted of 172 patients with UCLP and 71 patients with BCLP, whereas the non-NAM-prepared group consisted of 28 patients with UCLP and 5 with BCLP. The risk of secondary nasal revision for patients with UCLP was 3% in the NAM group and 21% in the non-NAM group. The risk of secondary nasal revision for patients with BCLP was 7% in the NAM group compared with 40% in the non-NAM group. Using multicenter averages, the non-NAM revision rates were calculated at 37.8% and 48.5% for U/BCLP, respectively. Applying these risks of revision, NAM treatment led to an estimated savings of between $491 and $4893 depending on the type of cleft. In conclusion, NAM can reduce the number of early secondary nasal revision surgeries and, therefore, reduce the overall cost of care.

Assessment of presurgical clefts and predicted surgical outcome in patients treated with and without nasoalveolar molding.

Obtaining an esthetic and functional primary surgical repair in patients with complete cleft lip and palate (CLP) can be challenging because of tissue deficiencies and alveolar ridge displacement. This study aimed to describe surgeons' assessments of presurgical deformity and predicted surgical outcomes in patients with complete unilateral and bilateral CLP (UCLP and BCLP, respectively) treated with and without nasoalveolar molding (NAM). Cleft surgeon members of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association completed online surveys to evaluate 20 presurgical photograph sets (frontal and basal views) of patients with UCLP (n = 10) and BCLP (n = 10) for severity of cleft deformity, quality of predicted surgical outcome, and likelihood of early surgical revision. Five patients in each group (UCLP and BCLP) received NAM, and 5 patients did not receive NAM. Surgeons were masked to patient group. Twenty-four percent (176/731) of surgeons with valid e-mail addresses responded to the survey. For patients with UCLP, surgeons reported that, for NAM-prepared patients, 53.3% had minimum severity clefts, 58.9% were anticipated to be among their best surgical outcomes, and 82.9% were unlikely to need revision surgery. For patients with BCLP, these percentages were 29.8%, 38.6%, and 59.9%, respectively. Comparing NAM-prepared with non-NAM-prepared patients showed statistically significant differences (P < 0.001), favoring NAM-prepared patients. This study suggests that cleft surgeons assess NAM-prepared patients as more likely to have less severe clefts, to be among the best of their surgical outcomes, and to be less likely to need revision surgery when compared with patients not prepared with NAM.

Cephalometric assessment of craniofacial morphology in patients with treacher Collins syndrome.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Treacher Collins syndrome is an autosomal dominant craniofacial disorder affecting derivatives of the first and second branchial arches. Given the conflicting reports in the literature regarding the extent of anterior-posterior and vertical (superior-inferior) dysplasia of the cranial base, maxilla, and mandible, this study was designed to provide a comprehensive lateral cephalometric assessment of the craniofacial morphology of unoperated patients with Treacher Collins syndrome. METHODS: The records of 45 patients with Treacher Collins syndrome registered at the Institute of Reconstructive Plastic Surgery of the NYU Langone Medical Center from the period of 1975 to 2008 were reviewed. Inclusion criteria included (1) patients between with the ages of 5 and 17 years, (2) no history of prior surgical intervention to correct skeletal deformity, and (3) diagnostic quality lateral cephalograms. Twenty patients satisfied the inclusion criteria with 12 male and 8 female patients in the sample and a mean age at the time of the lateral cephalogram of 8.8 years (range 5.2 to 16.7 years). Thirty angular and linear variables were measured to assess anterior-posterior and vertical (superior-inferior) position of the cranial base, maxilla, and mandible. Each patient's measurements were compared to age-matched and sex-matched control samples derived from the Moyers growth studies. The mean and standard deviation for each variable was then determined. RESULTS: Lateral cephalometric analysis showed decreased anterior, posterior, and total cranial base lengths and a reduced cranial base angle. The anteroposterior dimension or length of the maxilla is deficient and the maxilla is positioned posteriorly with respect to the cranial base. Both anterior and posterior facial heights (superior-inferior dimension) are decreased. Lower face height is increased, whereas total face is decreased. The maxillary and functional occlusal planes are tipped upwards posteriorly. The mandibular morphology is characteristically small in both body length and total mandibular length, and the maximum ramus width is also deficient. The mandibular plane angle and gonial angle are increased. The mandible is retropositioned. CONCLUSIONS: A lateral cephalometric analysis is described that provides a skeletal basis for the hallmark clinical findings associated with Treacher Collins syndrome. This is of importance because an understanding of the underlying skeletal dysmorphology may shed light on the etiology and growth pattern, and impacts the overall treatment planning for skeletal correction.

Volumetric assessment of the distracted human mandible.

The mandibles of five patients who underwent unilateral or bilateral distraction osteogenesis were analyzed using computed tomography scans. The mandibles were reconstructed in three dimensions using General Electric computed tomography software. The total volume of each hemimandible was determined before and after distraction and compared. The mandibles were then segmented at 1-cm intervals, and the volumes of the segments were determined. The volumes of the mandibular segments before and after distraction were compared to determine the distribution of new bone through the mandible and the quantity of bone generated by distraction. The distracted hemimandibles increased in total volume by an average of 19.9% (statistically significant by the Student paired t test; P < 0.0001), whereas the nondistracted hemimandibles increased in total volume by an average of 5.2%. The segmental volumes of the distracted mandible were of similar or greater volume when compared to the preoperative mandibular segments. In addition, the distribution of regenerate bone mirrored the physiological distribution of the preoperative mandibular bone. This study indicates that distraction not only creates new bone but distributes that bone through the remodeled mandible in an anatomical pattern similar to that of the preoperative bone.

Nasoalveolar molding and gingivoperiosteoplasty versus alveolar bone graft: an outcome analysis of costs in the treatment of unilateral cleft alveolus.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the financial impact of two treatment approaches to the unilateral cleft alveolus. The recently advocated nasoalveolar molding (NAM; and gingivoperiosteoplasty (GPP; at the time of lip repair were compared with the traditional approach of secondary alveolar bone graft. DESIGN: The records of all patients (n = 30) with unilateral cleft lip and alveolus treated by a single surgeon during 1985 through 1988 were examined retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups: group 1 patients (n = 14) were treated by lip repair, primary nasal repair, and secondary alveolar bone graft prior to eruption of permanent dentition; group 2 patients (n = 16) were treated by NAM, GPP, lip repair, and primary nasal repair. Patients who required secondary alveolar bone graft after GPP were noted. The cost of treatment by each protocol was calculated in 1998 dollars. RESULTS: The average cost of treatment for a patient treated by lip repair, primary nasal repair, and secondary alveolar bone graft prior to eruption of permanent dentition was $22,744. Of the 16 patients treated by NAM, GPP, lip repair, and primary nasal repair, 10 required no further treatment of the unilateral cleft alveolus; six patients required secondary alveolar bone graft. The average per-patient treatment cost in this group was $19,745. The average cost savings of NAM and GPP, compared with alveolar bone graft is $2999. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of unilateral cleft alveolus by nasoalveolar molding and gingivoperiosteoplasty results in substantial cost savings, compared with treatment by secondary alveolar bone graft.