The purpose of this study is to ascertain objective nasal measurements from the basal view that are predictive of nasal esthetics in individuals with secondary cleft nasal deformity.
Design
Thirty-three patients who had undergone unilateral cleft lip repair were retrospectively reviewed in this study. The degree of nasal deformity was subjectively ranked by seven surgeons using standardized basal-view measurements. Nine physical objective parameters including angles and ratios were measured. Correlations and regressions between these objective and subjective measurements were then analyzed.
Results
There was high concordance in subjective measurements by different surgeons (Kendall's harmonious coefficient = W = .825, P = .006). The strongest predictive factors for nasal aesthetics were the ratio of length of nasal alar (r = .370, P = .034) and the degree of deviation of the columnar axis (r = .451, P = .008). The columellar angle had a more powerful effect in rating nasal esthetics.
Conclusion
There was reliable concordance in subjective ranking of nasal esthetics by surgeons. Measurement of the columnar angle may serve as an independent, objective predictor of esthetics of the nose.
Al-OmariI., MillettD.T., AyoubA., BockM., RayA., DunawayD., CrampinL.An appraisal of three methods of rating facial deformity in patients with repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2003; 40: 530–537.
2.
Asher-McDadeC., RobertsC., ShawW.C., GallagerC.Development of a method for rating nasolabial appearance in patients with clefts of the lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1991; 28: 385–390.
3.
AungS.C., NgimR.C., LeeS.T.Evaluation of the laser scanner as a surface measuring tool and its accuracy as compared with direct facial anthropometric measurements. Br J Plastic Surg.1995; 48: 551–558.
4.
BearnD.R., SandyJ.R., ShawW.C.Photogrammetric assessment of the soft tissue profile in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2002; 39: 597–603.
5.
CuttingC.B.Secondary cleft lip nasal reconstruction: state of the art. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2000; 37: 538–541.
6.
DuskováM., KristenM., SmahelZ.The anthropometric verification of corrective surgery outcome in cleft secondary deformities. J Craniofac Surg.2006; 17: 447–453.
7.
FarkasL.G.Anthropometry of the Head and Face in Medicine.New York: Elsevier Press;1981.
8.
FarkasL.G., HajnisK., PosnickJ.C.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: 1–12.
9.
FarkasL.G., LindsayW.K.Morphology of adult face after repair of isolated cleft palate in childhood. Cleft Palate J.1972; 9: 132–142.
10.
FerrarioV.F., SforzaC., DellaviaC.Three-dimensional nasal morphology in cleft lip and palate operated adult patients. Ann Plast Surg.2003; 51: 390–397.
11.
FisherD.M., TseR., MarcusJ.R.Objective measurements for grading the primary unilateral cleft lip nasal deformity. Plast Reconstr Surg.2008; 122: 874–880.
12.
HurwitzD.J., AshbyE.R., LlullR., PasqualJ., TaborC., GarrisonL., GillenJ., WeyantR.Computer-assisted anthropometry for outcome assessment of cleft lip. Plast Reconstr Surg.1999; 103: 1608–1623.
13.
JohnsonN., SandyJ.An aesthetic index for evaluation of cleft repair. Eur J Orthod.2003; 25: 243–249.
14.
KrimmelM., KlubaS., BacherM., DietzK., ReinertK.Digital surface photogrammetry for anthropometric analysis of the cleft infant face. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2003; 43: 350–355.
15.
LandisJ.R., KochG.C.The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics.1977; 33: 159–174.
16.
MommaertsM.Y., NagyK.Analysis of the cleft lip-nose in the submental-vertical view. Part II. Panel study: which is the most important deformity?J Craniomaxillofac Surg.2008; 36: 315–320.
17.
NagyK., MommaertsM.Y.Analysis of the cleft-lip nose in submental-vertical view, part I—reliability of a new measurement instrument. J Craniomaxillofac Surg.2007; 35: 265–277.
18.
NolletP.J., Kuijpers-JagtmanA.M., ChatzigianniA., SembG., ShawW.C., BronkhorstE.M., KatsarosC.Nasolabial appearance in unilateral cleft lip, alveolus and palate: a comparison with Eurocleft. J Craniomaxillofac Surg.2007; 35: 278–286.
19.
RulloR., CarinicF., MazzarellaN., FestaV.M., FarinaA., MoranoD., CarlsF., GombosF.Delaire's cheilorhinoplasty: unilateral cleft aesthetic outcome scored according to the Eurocleft guidelines. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol.2006; 70: 463–468.
SalyerK.E.Early and late treatment of unilateral cleft nasal deformity. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1992; 29: 556–569.
22.
SàndorG.K., YlikontiolaL.P.Patient evaluation of outcomes of external rhinoplasty for unilateral cleft lip and palate. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2006; 35: 407–411.
23.
SundineM.J., PhillipsJ.H.Treatment of the unilateral cleft lip nasal deformity. J Craniofac Surg.2004; 15: 69–76.
24.
TobiasenJ.M., HiebertJ.M., BorazR.A.Development of scales of severity of facial cleft impairment. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1991; 28: 419–424.
25.
VegterF., MulderJ.W., HageJ.J.Major residual deformities in cleft patients: a new anthropometric approach. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1997; 34: 106–110.
26.
VerwoerdC.D., MladinaR., Nolst TrenitéG.J., PigottR.W.The nose in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol.1995; 32: 45–52.
27.
WilliamsH.B.A method of assessing cleft lip repair: comparison of LeMesurier and Millard techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg.1968; 41: 103–107.
28.
XingH., BingS., KamdarM., YangL., ZhengQ., LiS.Changes in lip 1 year after modified Millard repair. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2008; 37: 117–122.
29.
XingH., BingS., KamdarM., ZhengQ., LiS., WangY.Development of a method for rating nasal appearance after cleft lip repair. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg.2009; 62: 1437–1441.
30.
XingH., BingS., ShengL., QianZ.A geometrically justified rotation advancement technique for the repair of complete unilateral cleft lip. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg.2009; 62: 1154–1160.
