The decision to undertake rhinoplasty maneuvers during cleft lip repair remains controversial. Little data compare long-term outcomes with and without primary rhinoplasty (PR). This study compared nasolabial outcomes in cohorts with unilateral cleft lip (UCL) treated with and without PR at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia using standardized aesthetic and anthropometric assessments.
Design
Retrospective cohort study.
Setting
Tertiary care pediatric hospital.
Patients/Participants
Patients who underwent lip repair for UCL.
Interventions
Cleft lip repair with and without PR.
Main Outcome Measure(s)
Anthropometric analyses and crowdsourced aesthetic assessments using Americleft nasolabial appearance reference scales and pairwise comparisons.
Results
Among 208 patients, 155 (74.5%) and 53 (25.5%) underwent lip repair with and without PR at 4.5 ± 1.1 months. Primary rhinoplasty (β = 0.345, P = .037) and a lower Cleft Lip Severity Index (β = −0.341, P < .001) predicted superior pairwise rank at 4.9 ± 1.9 years of age. History of PR predicted decreased columellar deviation angle (CDA) (β = −2.375, P = .019) and improved nostril symmetry (β = 0.111, P = .038). Increased columellar-labial angle (r = 0.27, P = .002), improved nostril symmetry (r = −0.23, P = .01), and decreased CDA (r = −0.45, P < .001) correlated with superior ratings. Patients with ˂20 days of postoperative nasal stenting had inferior lateral ratings (2.4 ± 0.6 vs 2.1 ± 0.5, P = .005). Those who underwent surgery at ˂5.3 months had inferior nasal projection (Goode's ratio 0.56 ± 0.09 vs 0.62 ± 0.08, P = .006).
Conclusions
Primary rhinoplasty for UCL offers superior aesthetic results in early childhood by layperson and anthropometric assessments. Specific improved characteristics from PR—CDA and nostril symmetry—most greatly influence layperson perception of nasal appearance. Older age at surgery predicted increased nasal projection, while prolonged nasal stenting predicted superior profile appearance.
CussonsPDMurisonMSFernandezAEPigottRW. A panel based assessment of early versus no nasal correction of the cleft lip nose. Br J Plast Surg. 1993;46(1):7-12. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-1226(93)90057-i
11.
GawrychEJaniszewska-OlszowskaJ. Primary correction of nasal septal deformity in unilateral clefts during lip repair—A long-term study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2011;48(3):293-300. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/09-112
12.
Gosla-ReddySNagyKMommaertsMY, et al.Primary septoplasty in the repair of unilateral complete cleft lip and palate. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127(2):761-767. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e318200a97a
13.
MorselliPGPintoVNegosantiLFirinuAFabbriE. Early correction of septum JJ deformity in unilateral cleft lip-cleft palate. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(3):434e-441e. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31825dc1ab
14.
PintoVPiccinOBurgioLSummoVAntoniazziEMorselliPG. Effect of early correction of nasal septal deformity in unilateral cleft lip and palate on inferior turbinate hypertrophy and nasal patency. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;108:190-195. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2018.03.002
15.
BrusseCAVan der WerffJFStevensHP, et al.Symmetry and morbidity assessment of unilateral complete cleft lip nose corrected with or without primary nasal correction. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1999;36(4):361-366. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569_1999_036_0361_samaou_2.3.co_2
16.
DissauxCDiopVWagnerD, et al.Aesthetic and psychosocial impact of dentofacial appearance after primary rhinoplasty for cleft lip and palate. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2021;49(10):914-922. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2021.06.004
17.
VolpicelliEJPfaffMJHakimiKBradleyJPSolemRCLeeJC. Age-related differences in psychosocial function of children with craniofacial anomalies. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(4):776-784. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000003687
18.
HuntOBurdenDHepperPJohnstonC. The psychosocial effects of cleft lip and palate: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod. 2005;27(3):274-285. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cji004
19.
RichmanLCMcCoyTEConradALNopoulosPC. Neuropsychological, behavioral, and academic sequelae of cleft: early developmental, school age, and adolescent/young adult outcomes. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49(4):387-396. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/10-237
20.
AnderlHHusslHNinkovicM. Primary simultaneous lip and nose repair in the unilateral cleft lip and palate. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121(3):959-970. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000299942.84302.16
21.
SeoHJDenadaiRLoLJ. Long-term nasal growth after primary rhinoplasty for bilateral cleft lip nose deformity: a three-dimensional photogrammetric study with comparative analysis. J Clin Med. 2019;8(5):602. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8050602
22.
KimSKChaBHLeeKCParkJM. Primary correction of unilateral cleft lip nasal deformity in Asian patients: anthropometric evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;114(6):1373-1381. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000138592.37419.fd
Nunez-VillaveiranTFahradyanVMcNinchNLValentineALarsonHMurthyAS. Photogrammetric outcomes of primary nasal correction in unilateral cleft lip patients: early childhood results from a single surgeon's experience. Ann Plast Surg. 2020;84(1):53-61. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000002039
LuTCLamWLChangCSKuo-Ting ChenP. Primary correction of nasal deformity in unilateral incomplete cleft lip: a comparative study between three techniques. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2012;65(4):456-463. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2011.11.006
29.
LuTCYaoCFLinSChangCSChenPK. Primary septal cartilage graft for the unilateral cleft rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(5):1177-1186. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000003297
30.
AhujaRB. Primary rhinoplasty in unilateral cleft patients: the “limited open” approach and other technical considerations. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43(4):492-498. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/05-071.1
31.
TseRWKnightROestreichMRosserMMercanE. Unilateral cleft lip nasal deformity: three-dimensional analysis of the primary deformity and longitudinal changes following primary correction of the nasal foundation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145(1):185-199. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006389
32.
Rossell-PerryP. Primary unilateral cleft lip nasal deformity repair using V-Y-Z plasty: an anthropometric study. Indian J Plast Surg. 2017;50(2):180-186. doi:https://doi.org/10.4103/ijps.IJPS_215_16
33.
BschorerFSchneiderDSchonGHeilandMBschorerR. The microsurgical approach in primary cleft rhinoplasty—An anthropometric analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;76(10):2183-2191. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2018.03.018
34.
JamesNKMercerNSPeatBPigottRWMcCombH. Nasal symmetry: a 10-year comparison between the Pigott and McComb nasal correction. Br J Plast Surg. 1991;44(8):562-566. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-1226(91)90088-2
35.
LonicDMorrisDELoLJ. Primary overcorrection of the unilateral cleft nasal deformity: quantifying the results. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;77(Suppl 1):S25-S29. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000000708
36.
TangPMChaoNSLeungMWKelvinKW. Changes in nasal configuration following primary rhinoplasty: direct anthropometric measurement in patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2016;53(5):557-561. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/15-125
37.
van LoonBReddySGvan HeerbeekN, et al.3D stereophotogrammetric analysis of lip and nasal symmetry after primary cheiloseptoplasty in complete unilateral cleft lip repair. Rhinology. 2011;49(5):546-553. doi:https://doi.org/10.4193/Rhino.11.092
38.
FarkasLGHajnisKPosnickJC. Anthropometric and anthroposcopic findings of the nasal and facial region in cleft patients before and after primary lip and palate repair. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1993;30(1):1-12. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569_1993_030_0001_aaafot_2.3.co_2
39.
DatusanantyoRAHutagalungMRRizaliyanaSMarzoekiD. Anthropometric outcome of primary unilateral cleft lip repair in Indonesia. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2021;58(10):1236-1241. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665620982757
40.
HorswellBBPospisilOA. Nasal symmetry after primary cleft lip repair: comparison between Delaire cheilorhinoplasty and modified rotation-advancement. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995;53(9):1025-1030. discussion 1031-2. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(95)90119-1
41.
BansalAReddySGChugAMarkusAFKuijpers-JagtmanAM. Nasal symmetry after different techniques of primary lip repair for unilateral complete cleft lip with or without cleft of the alveolus and palate: a systematic review. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2022;50(12):894-909. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2022.12.006
42.
CampbellARestrepoCParkE, et al.Influence of severity on aesthetic outcomes of unilateral cleft lip repair in 1,823 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019;7(1):e2083. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002083
43.
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
44.
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
45.
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
46.
MassenburgBBMercanEEttingerRETseRW. The yin and yang of primary unilateral cleft lip and nose repair: balance through opposing cleft and noncleft side changes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2023;151(5):838e-849e. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000010091
47.
TseRWOhEGrussJSHopperRABirgfeldCB. Crowdsourcing as a novel method to evaluate aesthetic outcomes of treatment for unilateral cleft lip. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(4):864-874. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000002545
Asher-McDadeCRobertsCShawWCGallagerC. Development of a method for rating nasolabial appearance in patients with clefts of the lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1991;28(4):385-390. discussion 390-1. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569_1991_028_0385_doamfr_2.3.co_2
52.
MercadoAMRussellKADaskalogiannakisJ, et al.The Americleft project: a proposed expanded nasolabial appearance yardstick for 5- to 7-year-old patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (CUCLP). Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2016;53(1):30-37. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/14-017
53.
AlhayekSAlsalemMAlotaibiYOmairA. Evaluation of facial appearance in patients with repaired cleft lip and palate: comparing the assessment of laypeople and healthcare professionals. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;41(1):5. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-019-0189-1
54.
ChungEHBorzabadi-FarahaniAYenSL. Clinicians and laypeople assessment of facial attractiveness in patients with cleft lip and palate treated with LeFort I surgery or late maxillary protraction. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;77(9):1446-1450. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.05.042
55.
ManiMRSembGAndlin-SobockiA. Nasolabial appearance in adults with repaired unilateral cleft lip and palate: relation between professional and lay rating and patients’ satisfaction. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2010;44(4-5):191-198. doi:https://doi.org/10.3109/02844311.2010.499671
56.
PapamanouDAGkantidisNTopouzelisNChristouP. Appreciation of cleft lip and palate treatment outcome by professionals and laypeople. Eur J Orthod. 2012;34(5):553-560. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjr073
57.
HammoudehJAImahiyeroboTALiangF, et al.Early cleft lip repair revisited: a safe and effective approach utilizing a multidisciplinary protocol. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5(6):e1340. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001340
58.
ChowIPurnellCAHanwrightPJGosainAK. Evaluating the rule of 10 s in cleft lip repair: do data support dogma?Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(3):670-679. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000002476
59.
BrambrinkAMEversASAvidanMS, et al.Ketamine-induced neuroapoptosis in the fetal and neonatal rhesus macaque brain. Anesthesiology. 2012;116(2):372-384. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0b013e318242b2cd
60.
Jevtovic-TodorovicVHartmanREIzumiY, et al.Early exposure to common anesthetic agents causes widespread neurodegeneration in the developing rat brain and persistent learning deficits. J Neurosci. 2003;23(3):876-882. doi:https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.23-03-00876.2003
61.
CenziRGuardaL. A dynamic nostril splint in the surgery of the nasal tip: technical innovation. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1996;24(2):88-91. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/s1010-5182(96)80018-7
62.
NguyenDCMyintJALinAY. The role of postoperative nasal stents in cleft rhinoplasty: a systematic review. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2024;61(12):1941-1950. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656231190703
63.
Al-QatamiFAvinoamSPCuttingCBGraysonBHShetyePR. Efficacy of postsurgical nostril retainer in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate treated with presurgical nasoalveolar molding and primary cheiloplasty-rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2022;150(3):623-629. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000009426
64.
WongGBBurvinRMullikenJB. Resorbable internal splint: an adjunct to primary correction of unilateral cleft lip-nasal deformity. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;110(2):385-391. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-200208000-00001
65.
YeowVKChenPKChenYRNoordhoffSM. The use of nasal splints in the primary management of unilateral cleft nasal deformity. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;103(5):1347-1354. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199904050-00002
66.
AlloriACKelleyTMearaJG, et al.A standard set of outcome measures for the comprehensive appraisal of cleft care. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017;54(5):540-554. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/15-292
67.
ParkHChoJKohKS. Three-dimensional anthropometry for evaluating reliability of worm's eye view photographs of unilateral cleft lip nasal deformity. J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(6):e591-e594. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000007806
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.
