Rhinoplasty maneuvers at the time of cleft lip (CL) repair remain controversial. Particularly, the impact of primary rhinoplasty (PR) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and quality of life (QoL) is largely unknown. This study aims to compare PROs and QoL in patients with CL who did or did not undergo PR.
Design
Retrospective study.
Setting
Academic tertiary care center.
Patients, Participants
Patients with CL who completed the CLEFT-Q from 2021 to 2024 and had undergone definitive CL repair at our institution.
Interventions
PR or no primary rhinoplasty (NPR) at the time of CL repair.
Main Outcome Measure(s)
The primary outcome was CLEFT-Q scores across facial appearance, health-related QoL, and facial function domains.
Results
A total of 109 patients with 110 CLEFT-Q responses were included. 22% (n = 24) underwent NPR and 78% (n = 85) PR at time of CL repair. Median age at lip repair was 4.6 [1.6] months, and at CLEFT-Q survey was 10.2 [1.6] years. Among those with intermediate rhinoplasty, nose scores were significantly higher in PR compared to NPR on overall (75 vs. 57, P = .026) and unilateral CL analysis (75 vs. 57, P = .018). NPR patients were significantly more likely to undergo intermediate rhinoplasty than PR patients (71%, n = 17 vs 33%, n = 28, P < .001).
Conclusions
PR is associated with improved self-perception of nasal appearance in school-aged children with CL compared to those who did not undergo PR.
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
13.
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
14.
Gosla-ReddySNagyKMommaertsMYReddyRRBronkhorstEMPrasadRKuijpers-JagtmanAMBergeSJ. 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
15.
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
16.
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
17.
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
18.
NgJJBanalaMSussmanJHMassenburgBBWuMRomeoDJJacksonOALowDWTaylorJASwansonJW. Primary rhinoplasty for unilateral cleft lip: A long-term cohort assessment of aesthetic and anthropometric outcomes. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2024;ePub ahead of print
19.
EcksteinDAWuRLAkinbiyiTSilverLTaubPJ. Measuring quality of life in cleft lip and palate patients: Currently available patient-reported outcomes measures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(5):518e-526e. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31822b6a67
20.
Al-OmariIMillettDTAyoubAF. Methods of assessment of cleft-related facial deformity: A review. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(2):145-156. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/02-149.1
21.
KlassenAFStotlandMASkarsgardEDPusicAL. Clinical research in pediatric plastic surgery and systematic review of quality-of-life questionnaires. Clin Plast Surg. 2008;35(2):251-267. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cps.2007.10.004
22.
SinkoKJagschRPrechtlVWatzingerFHollmannKBaumannA. Evaluation of esthetic, functional, and quality-of-life outcome in adult cleft lip and palate patients. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(4):355-361. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/03-142.1
23.
StraussRPCassellCH. Critical issues in craniofacial care: Quality of life, costs of care, and implications of prenatal diagnosis. Acad Pediatr. 2009;9(6):427-432. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2009.09.019
24.
AlloriACKelleyTMearaJGAlbertABonanthayaKChapmanKCunninghamMDaskalogiannakisJde GierHHeggieAA, 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
25.
HomsyPGrannALassusP. Patient-reported esthetic outcomes following secondary rhinoplasty in adult patients with a cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2024:10556656241296793. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656241296793
26.
HensGPicavetVAPoortenVVSchoenaersJJorissenMHellingsPW. High patient satisfaction after secondary rhinoplasty in cleft lip patients. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2011;1(3):167-172. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.20023
27.
PauschNCUngerCPitak-ArnnopPSubbalekhaK. Nasal appearance after secondary cleft rhinoplasty: Comparison of professional rating with patient satisfaction. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;20(2):195-201. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-016-0555-4
28.
MoolenburghSEMureauMAHoferSO. Aesthetic outcome after nasal reconstruction: Patient versus panel perception. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2008;61(12):1459-1464. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2007.09.018
29.
RickettsSRegevEAntonyshynOMKissAFialkovJA. Use of the derriford appearance scale 59 to assess patient-reported outcomes in secondary cleft surgery. Plast Surg (Oakv). 2016;24(1):27-31. doi:https://doi.org/10.4172/plastic-surgery.1000956
30.
HarrisonCJRaeCTsangarisEWong RiffKWYSwanMCGoodacreTEECanoSKlassenAF. Further construct validation of the CLEFT-Q: Ability to detect differences in outcome for four cleft-specific surgeries. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2019;72(12):2049-2055. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2019.07.029
31.
GasslingVKoosBBirkenfeldFWiltfangJZimmermannCE. Secondary cleft nose rhinoplasty: Subjective and objective outcome evaluation. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015;43(9):1855-1862. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2015.08.012
32.
RoosenboomJHellingsPWPicavetVAProkopakisEPAntonisYSchoenaersJVander PoortenVClaesPHensG. Secondary cleft rhinoplasty: Impact on self-esteem and quality of life. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(6):1285-1292. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000000727
33.
DissauxCDiopVWagnerDTalmantJCMorandBBruant-RodierCRuffenachLGrollemundB. 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
34.
TsangarisEWong RiffKWYGoodacreTForrestCRDreiseMSykesJde ChalainTHarmanKO'MahonyAPusicAL, et al.Establishing content validity of the CLEFT-Q: A new patient-reported outcome instrument for cleft lip/palate. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5(4):e1305. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000001305
SalineroLKVillavisanisDFCheungLFerroDFFolsomNChoDYLowDWJacksonOBartlettSPSwansonJW. Integration of the CLEFT-Q patient-reported outcome tool into a multidisciplinary cleft and craniofacial clinic: A proof of concept. Plast Reconstr Surg.2024;154(2):351e-355e.
37.
CampbellARestrepoCDeshpandeGBernsteinSMTredwayCWendbyLSchonmeyrB. 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
38.
MassenburgBBNgJBanalaMSussmanJHSussmanJRomeoDJWuMJacksonOALowDWTaylorJA,et al.A long-term cohort assessment of aesthetic and anthropometric outcomes. European Cleft Palate Craniofacial Association Congress, 2024.
MillardDRJr. Closure of bilateral cleft lip and elongation of columella by two operations in infancy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1971;47(4):324-331. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-197104000-00004
SwansonJ. Primary cleft rhinoplasty: What do surgeons and laypeople see differently in elementary-age outcomes?. Sao Paulo, Brazil: Latin American Craniofacial Association Congress; 2024.
NoorSNMusaS. Assessment of patients’ level of satisfaction with cleft treatment using the cleft evaluation profile. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2007;44(3):292-303. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/05-151
50.
Meyer-MarcottyPStellzig-EisenhauerA. Dentofacial self-perception and social perception of adults with unilateral cleft lip and palate. J Orofac Orthop. 2009;70(3):224-236. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-009-8813-9
51.
Meyer-MarcottyPKochelJBoehmHLinzCKlammertUStellzig-EisenhauerA. Face perception in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate and patients with severe class III malocclusion compared to controls. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2011;39(3):158-163. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2010.05.001
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.
CampbellARestrepoCParkENavasGDeshpandeGSwansonJSchonmeyrBWendbyLAyalaR. 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
54.
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
55.
Meyer-MarcottyPAlpersGWGerdesABStellzig-EisenhauerA. Impact of facial asymmetry in visual perception: A 3-dimensional data analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137(2):168.e1-8; discussion 168-9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.11.023
56.
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
57.
HutchinsonKWellmanMANoeDAKahnA. The psychosocial effects of cleft lip and palate in non-anglo populations: A cross-cultural meta-analysis. Cleft Palate Craniof J. 2011;48(5):497-508. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/09-046
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.
