4.6 Article

Comparison of Presurgical Anthropometric Measures of Right and Left Complete Unilateral Cleft Lip and/or Palate

Journal

PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY
Volume 149, Issue 2, Pages 248E-253E

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000008769

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Left and right complete cleft lips have anthropometric differences, with right cleft lips showing greater deficiencies in lateral lip element development.
Background: Left clefts occur twice as frequently as right ones. The sidedness has been suggested to influence certain outcomes. Some surgeons ( potter a right deft more challenging to repair. This is often attributed to their reduced prevalence. The authors question whether this may be caused by morphologic differences. The authors' hypothesis is that there are anthropometric differences between left and right complete cleft lips. Methods: Patients with complete unilateral cleft lip, with or without cleft palate, operated on at the age of 3 to 6 months, between 2000 and 2018, by a single surgeon, were included. Eight standardized anthropometric measurements of the cleft lip, collected just before cleft lip repair, compare lip and vermillion dimensions and ratios between left and right clefts. Results: One hundred thirty-nine left and 80 right unilateral cleft lips were compared. A significant difference was found between left and right clefts for cleft-side to non-cleft-side ratios comparing the lateral lip element vertical heights and vermillion heights. Conclusions: Patients with right cleft lips have a greater degree of lateral lip element hypoplasia, demonstrating greater deficiencies of lateral lip element vertical height and vermillion height when compared to patients with left clefts. This has clinical implications for preoperative assessment, choice of surgical technique, and postoperative and long-term outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available