Atypical Outcomes of Nasal and Lip Appearance After Unilateral Cleft Lip Repair: Judgment by Professionals, Patients, and Laypeople.

OBJECTIVE: To gain more insight into the assessment of "atypical" nasal and lip appearance outcomes compared to "typical" appearance outcomes after unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) repair, when judged by professionals, patients with repaired UCLP, and laypeople. DESIGN: An online survey containing 3 series of photographs with various degrees of "typical" and "atypical" nasal and lip appearance outcomes after UCLP repair was sent to 30 professionals, 30 patients with repaired UCLP, and 50 laypeople in 2 countries. Participants were instructed to rank the photographs from excellent to poor based on overall appearance. Mean rank positions of photographs were analyzed and differences in mean rank score between "typical" and "atypical" results were assessed using a T-test. Agreement of ranking between the 3 groups was assessed with an analysis of variance analysis. SETTING: Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, Netherlands and Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, USA. PATIENTS: Photographs of 6- to 18-year-old patients with repaired UCLP. RESULTS: "Atypical" appearance outcomes were ranked significantly less favorably (small nostril: P = 0.00; low vermillion border: P = 0.02; whistling deformity: P = 0.00) compared to "typical" outcomes. Difference between professionals, patients and laypeople in rank positioning the photographs was not statistically significant (P = 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: Noses with a smaller nostril and lips containing a whistling deformity were perceived as poorer outcome compared to the "typical" results. Professionals, patients, and laypeople are in agreement when assessing these outcomes.

Does the Nostril Shape Change After Le Fort I Advancement in Patients With Unilateral Complete Cleft Lip?

PURPOSE: Patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) may require Le Fort I advancement to correct maxillary hypoplasia after reaching skeletal maturity. The underlying cleft anatomy, previous operations, and scarring can affect nostril changes after maxillary advancement. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether Le Fort I advancement affects the nostril configuration (ie, width, axis, shape) in patients with UCLP. The specific aims were to (1) compare cleft and noncleft nostrils in patients with UCLP after maxillary advancement and (2) compare the changes in nostril configuration in patients with UCLP with those in noncleft controls after Le Fort advancement. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective case-control study of nonsyndromic, skeletally mature patients with UCLP and a case-matched control group without UCLP who had undergone single-piece Le Fort I advancement with alar cinch suture from 2010 to 2014. Patients were included if they had undergone pre- and postoperative 3-dimensional photogrammetry without intervening nasal revision. Three-dimensional anthropometry was used to evaluate changes in nostril axis and width, soft triangle angle, columellar show, and nasal width after orthognathic correction. RESULTS: The present study included 19 patients with UCLP (11 males; mean age, 18.0 years) and 19 noncleft controls (11 males; mean age, 18.7 years; P = .276). The mean sagittal advancement in the patients with UCLP and noncleft controls was 7.5 mm and 6.3 mm, respectively (P = .143). On average, the nostrils widened, the soft triangles flattened, and the columellar show increased. No significant difference was found in the changes to the nostril configuration between the cleft and noncleft sides in the patients with UCLP. No significant differences were found in the nostril changes between patients with UCLP and noncleft controls. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline nostril asymmetry is not altered by Le Fort osteotomy in patients with UCLP because both nostrils respond similarly to the deforming forces of maxillary advancement. Similarly, no differences were found in the nostril changes between the cleft and noncleft controls. These findings can aid proper surgical planning for cleft nasal revisions.

Beware the Alar Base Optical Illusion in Assessment of Unilateral Cleft Lip Nasal Deformity.

BACKGROUND: After repair of unilateral cleft lip, lateral drift of the alar base is expected and may require revision. Although the alar base appears wider than on the noncleft side, by measurement it could be symmetric or narrow. Is this an optical illusion? METHODS: This is a retrospective photographic evaluation of children who underwent repair of unilateral complete cleft lip and palate. On submental standardized photographs, raters judged whether the alar base position was wider, equal to, or narrower than on the noncleft side. The true alar base position was measured by photogrammetry and the frequency of alar base misjudgment was assessed. On control photographs, the cleft side alar base was wider than the noncleft side. On test photographs, the cleft side alar base was narrower than the noncleft side. Possible association between misjudgment and nasal features was also evaluated. Data were analyzed using the Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Three raters assessed 61 patients aged 6 to 9 years and treated between 1995 and 2015. In 77 percent of control photographs, raters correctly judged the cleft side alar base as wider. In 65 percent of test photographs, raters incorrectly judged the alar base position as wider on the cleft side. Asymmetry of nostril outline and a transverse nostril axis were associated with misjudged photographs (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Alar base assessment can be altered by an optical illusion. Simple anthropometry counters this misperception. Measurement should be repeated after correction of the deviated anterocaudal septum and elevation of the lower lateral cartilage. Thereafter, a decision is made on altering the alar base position. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic, II.

Defining the Aesthetic Range of Normal Symmetry for Lip and Nose Features in 5-Year-Old Children Using the Computer-Based Program SymNose.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a normal comparison group against which to judge symmetry results after cleft surgery and to introduce the thin lip correction (TLC) feature in SymNose. A lip-aspect ratio algorithm has been added to the latest version of SymNose to compensate for the higher degree of overlap in thicker lips when compared to thin lips. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of symmetry in healthy participants, using the computer-based program SymNose on both anteroposterior (AP) and base view images. Photographs of 91 noncleft children were traced twice by 3 independent investigators experienced with SymNose. PARTICIPANTS: Five-year-old healthy participants from a local state school in Tavistock (West Devon, United Kingdom). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Asymmetry expressed as the perimeter mismatch percentage for nose and lip features on AP view images and for nose features on base view images. RESULTS: The perimeter mismatch reference range for the nose (AP view) was 2.65% to 30.91%, for the lip 2.13% to 15.44%, for the nose (base view) 1.69% to 14.84%, for the nostrils 4.68% to 26.6%, and for the width-height ratio 1.15% to 1.80%. The perimeter mismatch percentage for the lip without TLC was significantly higher compared to the perimeter mismatch percentage with TLC (P < .001). CONCLUSION: This article provides a noncleft reference range for all perimeters drawn from SymNose against which to compare results after cleft surgery at 5 years of age. Furthermore, it shows the importance of correcting for variance in lip volume per child.

Development of the Submental Nasal Appearance Scale for the Assessment of Repaired Unilateral Complete Cleft Lip: A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVE: To develop the "Submental Nasal Appearance Scale" (SNAS), which is an easy-to-use objectified tool to represent a cleft surgeon's standard for assessment of the nasal appearance from the submental perspective. DESIGN: Eighty-five photographs of patients with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate were selected and cropped, displaying the submental view. Sixty-one photographs were used to develop 5 sets of reference photographs. Three cleft surgeons graded 24 photographs with these sets and subjectively graded the overall nasal appearance as well. Internal agreement for both methods was calculated, as well as correlation between them. The SNAS was created, by only using the combination of sets that showed the highest reliability and correlation. SETTING: Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. PATIENTS: Six- to 9-year-old patients with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate. RESULTS: The intrarater and interrater reliability was 0.84 and 0.79, respectively, for the SNAS and 0.76 and 0.62, respectively, for the overall appearance assessment. The correlation was 0.74 between the methods. CONCLUSIONS: The SNAS is a reliable tool that reflects a cleft surgeon's standard and could be used independently or in combination with existing rating scales using the frontal and/or lateral view, for assessment after cleft lip repair.

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.