The Outcomes of Modified Millard Technique Versus Tennison-Randall Technique in Unilateral Cleft Lip Repair: A Comparative Trial.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to use anthropometric measurements taken pre- and post-operation to evaluate quantitative assessment of modified Millard technique compared with Tennison-Randall technique in unilateral cleft lip (UCL) repair. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective randomised controlled study recruited infants scheduled for UCL repair. Infants aged 2-6 months, either complete or incomplete deformity. A total of 68 patients were randomised in 1:1 ratio to undergo either modified Millard technique (Group I) or Tennison-Randall technique (Group II). RESULTS: Group I had significantly longer operative time than Group II (85.7 ± 7.4 vs. 68.7 ± 8.8 min, respectively; P < 0.001). Group I has less post-operative wound infection, wound dehiscence and wound scarring than Group II, but Group II has less post-operative lip notch. In Group I, greater increases in post-operative horizontal lip length and vertical lip height were observed, compared to Group II, without statistically significant difference. Group I showed a greater reduction in nasal width and total nasal width than Group II, without statistically significance. Group II had a greater increase in philtral height. However, only post-operative Cupid's-bow width was significantly different between two groups (P = 0.041). CONCLUSION: Overall results demonstrate no significant differences between modified Millard technique and Tennison-Randall technique.

Comparative Study between Modified Millard and White Roll Vermilion Flap Techniques in Unilateral Lip Repair: A Randomised Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: Cleft lip and palate, which affects 0.5-1.6 out of every 1000 live births, is the most prevalent congenital defect of the head and neck. Several approaches, including quadrangular flaps, triangular flaps and rotation-advancement procedures, White Roll Vermilion Turn Down Flap (WRV flap) from the lateral lip element were employed by Mishra to modify Millard's technique to create the vermilion and white roll on the medial lip segment. This study aimed to use the anthropometric measurements taken pre- and post-operation to evaluate quantitative assessment of modified Millard technique compared with WRV flap technique in unilateral cleft lip (UCL) repair. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective, randomised controlled study recruited infants scheduled for UCL repair. Infants aged 3-6 months, either complete or incomplete deformity. A total of 42 patients were randomized in 1:1 ratio to undergo either WRV flap technique (group A) or modified Millard technique (group B) and another control included 21 age-matched healthy children. We compared WRV flap procedure to Modified Millard's procedure in terms of both qualitative (another surgeon's opinion) and quantitative (anthropometric) evaluation. RESULTS: Vertical lip length and philtral lip height significantly longer in Millard group (B) than WRV flap group (A) in immediate postoperative assessment and nasal width was significantly wider in WRV flap group (A) than Millard group (B) in 3-month post-operative assessment. The lip shape, the vermilion shape was better in Millard technique than WRV flap technique; however, this was statistically insignificant. However, no major difference in the overall results between the WRV flap and Millard rotation-advancement repairs. CONCLUSION: Anthropometric measurement of surgical outcome evaluates the surgical technique used and helps to compare between cleft and non-cleft side showing the degree of deformity and we used subjective assessment to analyse facial aesthetics. Overall results demonstrate no significant differences between modified Millard technique and WRV flap technique.

Management of Complete Persistent Rectal Prolapse in Children: A Comparative Study Between Mesh Repair Versus Suturing Rectopexy.

BACKGROUND: Rectal prolapse is a relatively common, usually self-limiting illness in children. Peak incidence is between 1 and 3 years. The primary treatment of rectal prolapse is non-operative. Surgical intervention is needed in long-standing intractable cases of rectal prolapse, rectal pain/bleeding/ulceration and prolapse that needs frequent manual or difficult reduction. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and outcome of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy versus laparoscopic suture rectopexy in the management of persistent rectal prolapse in children not responding to conservative management and/or recurrent after sclerotherapy or anal encirclement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four cases were randomised into two groups at the ratio of 1:1, Group 1 patients were managed by laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, whereas Group 2 cases were managed by laparoscopic suture rectopexy. Patients with primary surgical conditions such as anorectal malformations, Hirschsprung's disease, rectal polyps or masses and Ectopia Vesicae were excluded from the study. Inclusion criteria were complete rectal prolapse cases with failed medical treatment for at least 6 months and/or recurrent after injection sclerotherapy or anal encirclement. RESULTS: In the mesh rectopexy group, one case had recurrence in the form of partial prolapse 3 weeks postoperatively which improved 2 months postoperatively with conservative management, one case had bleeding per rectum 2 months postoperatively, stool analysis was done revealing parasitic infestation which was treated medically. In the suture rectopexy group, one case had one attack of bleeding per rectum on the 2nd day postoperatively which resolved spontaneously and one case was readmitted on the 5th day postoperatively for non-bilious vomiting which improved by medical treatment. No recurrent cases of complete rectal prolapse were reported in both groups. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic rectopexy can be an effective modality for the treatment of refractory complete rectal prolapse in children. It is effective, safe and easy. Although the current study has shown that laparoscopic suture rectopexy and mesh rectopexy have nearly the same results, a larger number of patients are needed to compare more deeply between the two groups.