Scar Outcome in Unilateral Complete Cleft Lip Repair: A Comparative Analysis of Vertical Lip Lengthening Strategies Using the Rotation-Advancement Concept
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online June, 2025
Scar Outcome in Unilateral Complete Cleft Lip Repair: A Comparative Analysis of Vertical Lip Lengthening Strategies Using the Rotation-Advancement Concept
To assess the differences in scar outcomes between modified rotation-advancement techniques proposed by Drs. Mohler and Noordhoff, designed to address issues such as inadequate vertical lip length and scarring on the upper third of the lip in the original rotation-advancement technique.
Design
Retrospective single-surgeon (RD) study.
Patients
Consecutive non-syndromic children (n = 68) with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate.
Interventions
Modified Mohler (columellar backcut reconstructed with C flap; n = 34) and modified Noordhoff (lower, medially-created backcut reconstructed with laterally-based triangular skin flap; n = 34) repairs.
Mean outcome measures
Using 12-month postoperative frontal photographs, scar evaluations (overall and superior, middle, and inferior portions of the lip) were appraised by an assessment panel composed by independent professional and nonprofessional raters employing four validated qualitative scar assessment scales: Manchester Scar Scale, modified Scar-Rating Scale, Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale, and Visual Analog Scale. Quantitative computerized photogrammetric scar widths of the superior, middle, and inferior portions of the upper lip were also measured.
Results
The modified Noordhoff method showed significantly (all P < .001) better scar quality for the overall scar and superior portion of the scar in all four scales compared to the modified Mohler method, with no significant (all P > .05) difference for the middle and lower portions. No significant difference (all P > .05) was observed for photogrammetric scar width measurements.
Conclusion
The modified Noordhoff technique provided better qualitative results for unilateral complete cleft lip-related scars compared to the modified Mohler technique.
RousselLOMyersRPGirottoJA. The Millard rotation-advancement cleft lip repair: 50 years of modification. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2015;52(6):e188-e195. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/14-276
4.
StalSBrownRHHigueraS, et al.Fifty years of the Millard rotation-advancement: Looking back and moving forward. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123(4):1364-1377. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31819e26a5
5.
CuttingCBDayanJH. Lip height and lip width after extended Mohler unilateral cleft lip repair. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;111(1):17-23; discussion 24-6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PRS.0000036045.22434.D4.
6.
MullikenJBMartínez-PérezD. The principle of rotation advancement for repair of unilateral complete cleft lip and nasal deformity: Technical variations and analysis of results. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;104(5):1247-1260. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199910000-00003
NoordhoffMS. The surgical technique for the unilateral cleft lip-nasal deformity. Noordhoff Craniofacial Foundation; 1997.
9.
NoordhoffMSChenYRChenKTHongKFLoLJ. The surgical technique for the complete unilateral cleft lip-nasal deformity. Oper Tech Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995;2:167-174. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-0949(95)80006-9
10.
PaiBCJHungYTWangRSHLoLJ. Outcome of patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate: 20-year follow-up of a treatment protocol. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143(2):359e-367e. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005216
11.
JungSChungKHChangSYOhrmmanDLimELoLJ. A new technique for perioral muscle reconstruction and lip lengthening in complete unilateral cleft lip. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2020;73(4):749-757. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2019.11.013
12.
DenadaiRChouPYJungSSatoNPascasioDCGLoLJ. A surgical and educational video of the inferior turbinate mucosal flap for the nasal floor and intraoral reconstruction in unilateral complete cleft lip repair. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2020;57(8):1045-1050. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665620910046
13.
DenadaiRLoLJ. Modified mucosal reconstruction in unilateral complete cleft of lip and primary palate: surgical technique and practical strategies. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2023. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656231212264. Epub ahead of print.
14.
DenadaiRLoLJ. Current state of the art in unilateral cleft lip repair with primary nasal overcorrection: Lo’s modified Noordhoff’s procedure. In: DenadaiRLoLJ, eds. Current concept in cleft surgery. Springer; 2022:199-264. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3163-5_10.
15.
PatelTAPatelKG. Comparison of the Fisher anatomical subunit and modified Millard rotation-advancement cleft lip repairs. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;144(2):238e-245e. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005847
16.
DeshmukhMVaidyaSDeshpandeGGalindeJNatarajanS. Comparative evaluation of esthetic outcomes in unilateral cleft lip repair between the Mohler and Fisher repair techniques: A prospective, randomized, observer-blind study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;77(1):182.e1-182.e8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2018.08.029
17.
KwongJWCaiLZAzadAD, et al.Assessing the Fisher, Mohler, and Millard techniques of cleft lip repair surgery with eye-tracking technology. Ann Plast Surg. 2019;82(5S Suppl 4):S313-S319. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000001911
18.
LiLLiaoLZhongYLiYXiangLLiW. Variation trends of the postoperative outcomes for unilateral cleft lip patients by modified Mohler and Tennison-Randall cheiloplasties. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016;44(11):1786-1795. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2016.08.025
19.
RussellAJPatelKBSkolnickGBWooAS. The use of an inferior pennant flap during unilateral cleft lip repair improves lip height symmetry. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136(5):1046-1053. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001707
20.
Gosla ReddySReddyRRBronkhorstEMPrasadRKuijpers JagtmanAMBergéS. Comparison of three incisions to repair complete unilateral cleft lip. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(4):1208-1216. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181d45143
21.
YamadaTMoriYMinamiKMishimaKSugaharaT. Three-dimensional facial morphology, following primary cleft lip repair using the triangular flap with or without rotation advancement. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2002;30(6):337-342. doi:https://doi.org/10.1054/jcms.2002.0320
22.
HaJHKooYTParkSOKimIKChungJHKimS. Revisiting straight-line repair in unilateral complete cleft lip: A comparison with rotation-advancement repair. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;50(8):1047-1054. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2021.01.001
23.
SuchytaMAzadAPatelAAKhoslaRKLorenzHPNazeraliRS. Applied online crowdsourcing in plastic and reconstructive surgery: A comparison of aesthetic outcomes in unilateral cleft lip repair techniques. Ann Plast Surg. 2020;84(5S Suppl 4):S307-S310. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000002389
24.
RamlyEPEisemannBSKantarRS, et al.Unilateral cleft lip repair: A quantitative scale assessment of postoperative lip and nose scars across 2 operative techniques. Ann Plast Surg. 2019;83(6):660-663. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000001991
25.
EisemannBSKantarRSRamlyEPAlfonsoARWangMFloresRL. Qualitative assessment of columella scar quality after extended Mohler unilateral cleft lip repair. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30(7):2194-2197. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000005750
26.
FransFAvan ZuijlenPPGriotJPvan der HorstCM. Assessment of scar quality after cleft lip closure. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49(2):171-176. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/10-254
27.
TamadaINakajimaT. Detailed assessment of cleft lip scar following straight line repair. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010;63(2):282-288. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2008.11.005
28.
ChristofidesEPotgieterAChaitL. A long term subjective and objective assessment of the scar in unilateral cleft lip repairs using the Millard technique without revisional surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2006;59(4):380-386. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2005.04.037
29.
ChangCSWallaceCGHsiaoYCChangCJChenPK. Botulinum toxin to improve results in cleft lip repair. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(3):511-516. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000416
30.
ChangCSWallaceCGHsiaoYC, et al.Clinical evaluation of silicone gel in the treatment of cleft lip scars. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):7422. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-25697-x
31.
ChangCSWallaceCGHsiaoYCChangCJChenPK. Botulinum toxin to improve results in cleft lip repair: A double-blinded, randomized, vehicle-controlled clinical trial. PLoS One. 2014;9(12):e115690. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115690
32.
LuTCBhandariKYaoCFChenPK. The effect of botulinum toxin A in unilateral cleft lip scar: Comparison of results with different sites of injection. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;51(7):900-905. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2021.12.007
33.
MecottGAFinnertyCCHerndonDN, et al.Reliable scar scoring system to assess photographs of burn patients. J Surg Res. 2015;199(2):688-697. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2014.10.055
34.
SingerAJAroraBDagumAValentineSHollanderJE. Development and validation of a novel scar evaluation scale. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120(7):1892-1897. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000287275.15511.10
ChenPKTPanditV. Unilateral cleft lip repair: rotation-advancement technique. In: SwansonJW, ed. Global cleft care in low-resource settings. Springer; 2021. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59105-2_11
38.
TangcoIBhandariKYaoCFLiuAWCChenPKLuTC. Unilateral cleft lip repair using the Chang Gung technique: An outcome analysis. Ann Plast Surg. 2021;86(2S Suppl 1):S41-S45. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000002704
39.
CampbellARestrepoCDeshpandeG, et al.Validation of the unilateral cleft lip severity Index for surgeons and laypersons. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5(9):e1479. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001479
40.
MercanEOestreichMFisherDM, et al.Objective assessment of the unilateral cleft lip nasal deformity using three-dimensional stereophotogrammetry: Severity and outcome. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141(4):547e-558e. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000004233
41.
YaoCAMcCulloughMAuslanderAImahiyeroboTAVanderburgRMageeWP3rd. The smile index: Part 2. a simple, prognostic severity scale for unilateral cleft lip. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143(4):790e-797e. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005432
42.
NaranSKirschnerRESchusterL, et al.Simonart's band: Its effect on cleft classification and recommendations for standardized nomenclature. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017;54(6):726-733. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/15-319
43.
EttorreGWeberMSchaafHLowryJCMommaertsMYHowaldtHP. Standards for digital photography in cranio-maxillo-facial surgery - part I: Basic views and guidelines. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2006;34(2):65-73. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2005.11.002
44.
BondJSDuncanJALSattarA, et al.Maturation of the human scar: An observational study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121(5):1650-1658. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31816a9f6f
45.
KrakowskiACShumakerPR. The scar book: formation, mitigation, rehabilitation, and prevention. Wolters Klower; 2017.
46.
SchwirtzRMFMulderFJMosmullerDGM, et al.Rating nasolabial aesthetics in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients: Cropped versus full-face images. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(5):747-752. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665617747702
47.
RefaheeSMAboulhassanMAAbdel AzizO, et al.Is PRP effective in reducing the scar width of primary cleft lip repair? A randomized controlled clinical study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2020;57(5):581-588. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665619884455
ThomasH. Distributions of correlation coefficients. Springer-Verlag; 1989.
50.
BeebeeHHitchcockCMenziesP. The Oxford handbook of causation. Oxford University Press; 2009.
51.
McGrawKOWongSP. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods. 1996;1(1):30-46. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.30
52.
FisherDMTseRMarcusJR. Objective measurements for grading the primary unilateral cleft lip nasal deformity. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122(3):874-880. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181811a52
53.
ZhuSJayaramanJKhambayB. Evaluation of facial appearance in patients with cleft lip and palate by laypeople and professionals: A systematic literature review. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2016;53(2):187-196. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/14-177
54.
MarcusJRAlloriACSantiagoPE. Principles of cleft lip repair: Conventions, commonalities, and controversies. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(3):764e-780e. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000003148
MarshallCDHuMSLeavittTBarnesLALorenzHPLongakerMT. Cutaneous scarring: Basic science, current treatments, and future directions. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2018;7(2):29-45. doi:https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2016.0696
57.
NakajimaTYoshimuraY. Early repair of unilateral cleft lip employing a small triangular flap method and primary nasal correction. Br J Plast Surg. 1993;46(7):616-618. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-1226(93)90117-t
58.
IshigakiTUdagawaA. Use of the modified unilateral cleft lip repair technique to establish a cupid's bow with a natural structure. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2021 Jun;58(6):791-795. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665620962364
FunayamaEYamamotoYFurukawaH, et al.A new primary cleft lip repair technique tailored for Asian patients that combines three surgical concepts: Comparison with rotation–advancement and straight-line methods. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016;44(1):27-33. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2015.09.005
TseRLienS. Unilateral cleft lip repair using the anatomical subunit approximation: Modifications and analysis of early results in 100 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136(1):119-130. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001369
63.
MullikenJBLaBrieRA. Fourth-dimensional changes in nasolabial dimensions following rotation-advancement repair of unilateral cleft lip. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129(2):491-498. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31822b69b4
64.
CuttingC. Discussion. Fourth-dimensional changes in nasolabial dimensions following rotation-advancement repair of unilateral cleft lip. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129(2):499-501. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31823ae82f
PerryDMMcGroutherDABayatA. Current tools for noninvasive objective assessment of skin scars. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(3):912-923. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181e6046b
67.
Ud-DinSBayatA. Noninvasive objective tools for quantitative assessment of skin scarring. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2022;11(3):132-149. doi:https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2020.1387
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
