Long-term comparison of the results of four techniques used for bilateral cleft nose repair: a single surgeon's experience.

[BACKGROUND] The purpose of this study was to evaluate progressive changes in surgical techniques and results, aiming for improved nasal shape in primary bilateral cleft rhinoplasty.

[METHODS] This is an institutional review board-approved retrospective study. Ninety-one consecutive patients with bilateral complete cleft lip underwent primary cheiloplasty with four different techniques of nasal reconstruction from 1992 to 2007 as follows: group I, primary rhinoplasty alone; group II, nasoalveolar molding alone; group III, nasoalveolar molding plus primary rhinoplasty; group IV, nasoalveolar molding plus primary rhinoplasty with overcorrection; and group V, patients without cleft lip. The surgical results were analyzed using photographic records obtained at age 3 years. Four measurements and one angle measurement were obtained. A panel assessment was obtained to grade the appearance of the surgical results.

[RESULTS] The results are expressed in order from groups I through V. The nostril height-to-width ratio was 0.49, 0.59, 0.62, 0.78, and 0.82, respectively. The nasal tip height-to-nasal width ratio was 0.29, 0.39, 0.49, 0.57, and 0.60. The columella height-to-nasal width ratio was 0.11, 0.18, 0.22, 0.27, and 0.28. The dome-to-columella ratio was 1.88, 1.25, 1.26, 1.14, and 1.10. The nostril area ratio was 1.2, 1.17, 1.13, 1.11, and 1.07. The nasolabial angle was 144.95, 143.98, 121.98, 120.99, and 100.88. Finally, group IV had the best panel assessment.

[CONCLUSIONS] The results revealed that group IV had the best overall result. Presurgical nasoalveolar molding followed by primary rhinoplasty with overcorrection resulted in a nasal appearance that was closer to the patients without cleft lip.