LeFort I Horizontal Osteotomy: Defining the Feasibility of the “High Osteotomy”

Abstract

Objective

To define “high osteotomy” and determine the feasibility of performing this procedure.

Design

Single institution, retrospective review.

Setting

Academic tertiary referral hospital.

Patients, Participants

34 skeletally mature, nonsyndromic patients with unilateral CLP who underwent Le Fort I osteotomy between 2013 and 2020. Patients with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans completed both pre- (T1) and post-operatively (T2) were included. Patients with bilateral clefts and rhinoplasty prior to post-operative imaging were excluded.

Interventions

Single jaw one-piece Le Fort I advancement surgery

Main Outcome Measures

Measurements of the superior ala and inferior turbinates were taken from the post-operative CBCT.

Results

The sample included 26 males and 8 females, 12 right- and 22 left-sided clefts. The inferior turbinates are above the superior alar crease at a rate of 73.53% and 76.48% on the cleft and non-cleft sides, respectively. One (2.9%) osteotomy cut was above the level of the cleft superior alar crease, and no cuts were above the level of the non-cleft superior ala. On average, the superior ala was 2.63 mm below the inferior turbinates. The average vertical distances from the superior alar crease and the inferior turbinates to the base of the non-cleft side pyriform aperture were 12.17 mm (95% CI 4.00–20.34) and 14.80 mm (95% CI 4.61–24.98), respectively. To complete a “high osteotomy,” with 95% confidence, the cut should be 20.36 mm from the base of the pyriform aperture.

Conclusions

A “high” osteotomy is not consistently possible due to the relationship between the superior alar crease and the inferior turbinate.

Keywords

orthognathic surgery retrospective study surgical technique cleft lip and palate craniofacial surgery pediatrics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Wehby

Cassell

. The impact of orofacial clefts on quality of life and healthcare use and costs. Oral Dis. 2010;16(1):3–10.

Bishara

Krause

Olin

Weston

Ness

Felling

. Facial and dental relationships of individuals with unoperated clefts of the lip and/or palate. Cleft Palate J. 1976;13:238–252.

Mars

Houston

WJ.

A preliminary study of facial growth and morphology in unoperated male unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects over 13 year of age. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1990;27(1):7–10.

Krogman

Mazaheri

Harding

, et al. A longitudinal study of the craniofacial growth pattern in children with clefts as compared to normal, birth to six years. Cleft Palate J. 1975(00);12:59–84.

Naqvi

Shivalinga

Ravi

Munawwar

. Effect of cleft lip palate repair on craniofacial growth. J Orthod Sci. 2015;4(3):59–64.

Holland

Gabbay

Heller

, et al. Delayed closure of the hard palate leads to speech problems and deleterious maxillary growth. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;119(4):1302–1310.

Baik

. Presurgical and postsurgical orthodontics in patients with cleft lip and palate. J Craniofac Surg. 2009;20(Suppl 2):1771–1775.

Strong

Ulma

Duncan

Vercler

Buchman

. Achieving the optimal aesthetic benefit while correcting midface deficiency: Utilizing A high winged Le fort I in cleft and craniofacial patients. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2021;32(1):46–50.

Ross

. Treatment variables affecting facial growth in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate J. 1987;24(1):5–77.

10.

Good

Mulliken

Padwa

. Frequency of Le Fort I osteotomy after repaired cleft lip and palate or cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2007;44(4):396–401.

11.

Wangsrimongkol

Flores

Staffenberg

Rodriguez

Shetye

. Skeletal and dental correction and stability following LeFort I advancement in patients with cleft lip and palate with mild, moderate, and severe maxillary hypoplasia. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022;59(1):98–109.

12.

Wangsrimongkol

Flores

Staffenberg

Rodriguez

Shetye

. Skeletal and dental stability following different magnitude of Le Fort I advancement in patients with cleft lip and palate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;79(9):1932–1942.

13.

Dabir

Vahanwala

. Orthognathic surgery for the maxilla-LeFort I and anterior maxillary osteotomy. In: XXX

, ed. Oral and maxillofacial surgery for the clinician. Springer; 2021:1513–1548.

14.

Nakajima

Nakano

Sumida

, et al. High Le Fort I osteotomy for correction of mid-face deformity in Crouzon syndrome. Congenit Anom (Kyoto). 2016;56(5):240–242.

15.

Buchanan

Hyman

. Lefort I osteotomy. Semin Plast Surg. 2013;27(3):149–154. doi:https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1357112

16.

Nørholt

Sindet-Pedersen

Jensen

. An extended Le Fort I osteotomy for correction of midface hypoplasia: A modified technique and results in 35 patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1996;54(11):1297–1306.

17.

Sugahara

Koyachi

Odaka

Matsunaga

Katakura

. A safe, stable, and convenient three-dimensional device for high Le Fort I osteotomy. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;42(1):32.

18.

Kim

Park

Son

Hwang

. Midfacial soft-tissue changes after advancement of maxilla with Le Fort I osteotomy and mandibular setback surgery: Comparison of conventional and high Le Fort I osteotomies by superimposition of cone-beam computed tomography volumes. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;69(6):e225–e233.

19.

You

Bell

Finn

. Location of the nasolacrimal canal in relation to the high Le Fort I osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1992;50(10):1075–1080. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(92)90494-k

20.

Massie

Runyan

Stern

, et al. Nasal septal anatomy in skeletally mature patients with cleft lip and palate. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2016;18(5):347–353.

21.

Dentino

Sierra-Vasquez

Padwa

. Inferior turbinate asymmetry is a feature of the unilateral complete cleft lip and palate nasal deformity. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;74(4):797–803.