Three-Dimensional Measurement of the Lateral Lip Element Sacrificed in Primary Repair of a Unilateral Cleft Lip.
Journal
Annals of plastic surgery
ISSN: 1536-3708
Titre abrégé: Ann Plast Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7805336
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2020
08 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
19
3
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
entrez:
19
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In most children with a unilateral cleft lip (UCL), because lateral lip tissue on the cleft side is congenitally short, the lateral lip element should be appropriately excised during primary cheiloplasty so that symmetric nasolabial features are obtained after surgery. The purpose of this study was to measure how much of the lateral lip element is removed during primary cheiloplasty and compare the amount of sacrifice between different incision designs. Preoperative 3-dimensional images of 50 infants with UCL were randomly selected. The incision designs of 3 representative techniques (Millard, Onizuka, and Fisher) were drawn on the images that were obtained before the primary repair. The lateral lip tissue excised by each technique was estimated as a percentage of the surface area of the sacrificed lateral lip to the entire lateral lip of the cleft side. In the case of incomplete UCL, the median values (range) were 3.2% (1.1%-5.9%), 11.6% (8.3%-20.1%), and 27.2% (15.1%-42.3%) for the Millard, Onizuka, and Fisher repairs, respectively. In cases of complete UCL, no sacrifice was needed for the Millard repair, whereas the median values (range) were 10.6% (5.2%-28.9%) and 22.5% (11.5%-48.6%) for the Onizuka and Fisher repairs, respectively. In Millard repair, the median values (range) of the lateral lip element that was resected before skin closure according to the "cut-as-you-go" policy were 5.8% (2.2%-11.8%) in cases with an incomplete UCL and 4.9% (2.7%-9.1%) in cases with a complete UCL. Our study demonstrated that sacrifice of the lateral lip element was minimal in the Millard repair, whereas it could exceed 20% in the Fisher repair. However, additional sacrifice of the advancement flap was needed in the Millard-type repair. The ratio of the lateral lip sacrifice varied between patients. Although UCL repair techniques should not be evaluated with the sacrifice ratio, excessive sacrifice of the lateral lip tissue can complicate the secondary lip correction. We recommend that surgeons estimate preoperatively how much lateral lip element will be sacrificed with each incision design using a 3-dimensional image for each child with a UCL.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In most children with a unilateral cleft lip (UCL), because lateral lip tissue on the cleft side is congenitally short, the lateral lip element should be appropriately excised during primary cheiloplasty so that symmetric nasolabial features are obtained after surgery. The purpose of this study was to measure how much of the lateral lip element is removed during primary cheiloplasty and compare the amount of sacrifice between different incision designs.
METHODS
Preoperative 3-dimensional images of 50 infants with UCL were randomly selected. The incision designs of 3 representative techniques (Millard, Onizuka, and Fisher) were drawn on the images that were obtained before the primary repair. The lateral lip tissue excised by each technique was estimated as a percentage of the surface area of the sacrificed lateral lip to the entire lateral lip of the cleft side.
RESULTS
In the case of incomplete UCL, the median values (range) were 3.2% (1.1%-5.9%), 11.6% (8.3%-20.1%), and 27.2% (15.1%-42.3%) for the Millard, Onizuka, and Fisher repairs, respectively. In cases of complete UCL, no sacrifice was needed for the Millard repair, whereas the median values (range) were 10.6% (5.2%-28.9%) and 22.5% (11.5%-48.6%) for the Onizuka and Fisher repairs, respectively. In Millard repair, the median values (range) of the lateral lip element that was resected before skin closure according to the "cut-as-you-go" policy were 5.8% (2.2%-11.8%) in cases with an incomplete UCL and 4.9% (2.7%-9.1%) in cases with a complete UCL.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study demonstrated that sacrifice of the lateral lip element was minimal in the Millard repair, whereas it could exceed 20% in the Fisher repair. However, additional sacrifice of the advancement flap was needed in the Millard-type repair. The ratio of the lateral lip sacrifice varied between patients. Although UCL repair techniques should not be evaluated with the sacrifice ratio, excessive sacrifice of the lateral lip tissue can complicate the secondary lip correction. We recommend that surgeons estimate preoperatively how much lateral lip element will be sacrificed with each incision design using a 3-dimensional image for each child with a UCL.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32187070
doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000002358
pii: 00000637-202008000-00016
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
180-184Références
Marcus JR, Allori AC, Santiago PE. Principles of cleft lip repair: conventions, commonalities, and controversies. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:764e–780e.
Tse R, Lien S. Unilateral cleft lip repair using the anatomical subunit approximation: modifications and analysis of early results in 100 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136:119–130.
Boorer CJ, Cho DC, Vijayasekaran VS, et al. Presurgical unilateral cleft lip anthropometrics: implications for the choice of repair technique. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:774–780.
Morioka D, Mandrano N, Fujimoto H, et al. Longitudinal follow-up of individuals with cleft lip using three-dimensional stereophotogrammetry. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29:1261–1265.
Morioka D, Sato N, Kusano T, et al. Difference in nasolabial features between awake and asleep infants with unilateral cleft lip: anthropometric measurements using three-dimensional stereophotogrammetry. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015;43:2093–2099.
Millard DR. Cleft Claft: The Evolution of Its Surgery: Vol. 1. Boston, MA: Little, Brown; 1976:175–187.
Onizuka T, Ichinose M, Hosaka Y, et al. The contour lines of the upper lip and a revised method of cleft lip repair. Ann Plast Surg. 1991;27:238–252.
Fisher DM. Unilateral cleft lip repair: an anatomical subunit approximation technique. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;116:61–71.
Roberts JM, Jacobs A, Morrow B, et al. Current trends in unilateral cleft lip care: a 10-year update on practice patterns. Ann Plast Surg. 2020;84:595–601.
Uemura T, Preeyanont P, Udnoon S. Humanitarian cleft lip/palate surgeries in Buddhist Thailand and neighboring countries. J Craniofac Surg. 2015;26:1112–1115.
Tokugawa Y, Kochi S, Nakajou T. Current state of primary surgery identified from “treatment plan for cleft lip and palate”. J Jpn Cleft Plate Assoc. 2010;35:217–222.
Sitzman TJ, Girotto JA, Marcus JR. Current surgical practices in cleft care: unilateral cleft lip repair. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121:261e–270e.
Millard DR. Invited comment. Ann Plast Surg. 1991;27:252.
Stal S, Hollier L. Correction of secondary cleft lip deformities. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;109:1672–1681.
Sitzman TJ, Coyne SM, Britto MT. The burden of care for children with unilateral cleft lip: a systematic review of revision surgery. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2016;53:84–94.
Becker M, Svensson H, McWilliam J, et al. Millard repair of unilateral isolated cleft lip: a 25-year follow-up. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 1998;32:387–394.
Baek RM, Lee SW. Important aspects of oral lining in unilateral cleft lip repair. J Craniofac Surg. 2009;20:1578–1582.
Fisher DM. Discussion: the Skoog lip repair for unilateral cleft lip deformity: the Uppsala experience. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141:1234–1236.
Zhang Z, Miyabe M, Morioka D, et al. Incidence of secondary lip correction for children with unilateral cleft lip: a single-center retrospective study. Ann Plast Surg. 2019;83:424–428.