Comparative Assessment of the Cleft Profile by Patients with Cleft Lip and Palate, Cleft Surgeons, and Lay People

Tian, Meng; Ma, Li; Wang, Zhi

doi:10.1007/s00266-015-0546-0

Cited by 8 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Zhu et al (2016) included eleven articles in their recent systematic review about rating facial appearance of CLP patients: Five studies found that professionals were more critical than lay people, three studies found no significant difference, and three studies reported that lay people were more critical. Professionals might be more critical as they are trained to critically examine faces and notice fine differences in the degree of impairment, resulting in a more negative score (Eliason et al, 1991; Al-Omari et al, 2005; Meng et al, 2015). However, they also have a better appreciation of the results than do members of the public, as they are familiar with the whole range of possible outcomes in CLP patients (Eichenberger et al, 2014; Mosmuller et al, 2015; Stebel et al, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, they also have a better appreciation of the results than do members of the public, as they are familiar with the whole range of possible outcomes in CLP patients (Eichenberger et al, 2014; Mosmuller et al, 2015; Stebel et al, 2015). Lay people are rarely asked to assess an individual's attractiveness formally, only to rate the nasolabial area, resulting in more positive ratings, as they feel empathetic towards the CLP patient (Eliason et al, 1991; Meng et al, 2015). Similarly, many lay people are unfamiliar with CLP, and their own perception of the residual deformity may influence their assessment negatively (Stebel et al, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Cleft Aesthetic Rating Scale for 18-Year-Old Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patients

Mulder¹,

Mosmuller²,

Vet³

et al. 2018

The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Cleft Aesthetic Rating Scale for 18-Year-Old Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patients

Mulder¹,

Mosmuller²,

Vet³

et al. 2018

The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, Meng et al . 15 describe similar ratings between experts and lay raters. The Eurocleft project systematically applied an evaluation strategy based on the Likert scale to provide an extensive overview over the various treatment strategies available in Europe.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Facial Aesthetics in Young Adults after Cleft Lip and Palate Treatment over Five Decades

Sinko

Cede

Jagsch

et al. 2017

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cleft Lip and Palate (CLP) - a common facial malformation in newborns – is typically corrected by surgical intervention to allow for normal speech development, psychosocial adjustment, and facial attractiveness. The long term treatment outcome can be evaluated after a number of years, possibly in adulthood. We investigated the aesthetics of the nasolabial region by subjective ratings. To compare various surgical approaches we recruited 12 raters to evaluate 429 patients. Expert and lay raters judged photographs from patients, who have completed treatment with one of three different surgical strategies performed in our institution over 50 years. Facial photographs were cropped, presented to the raters in a randomized sequence, and judged by the raters on a 5 point Likert scale. The subjective ratings between the raters revealed a fair to substantial inter-rater reliability. The average ratings of the surgical outcome improved continuously over the investigated 5 decades. Despite possible differences between raters and rater groups this overall result was consistently seen in the gender groups (male/female), or expertise related groups (expert/lay). Our analysis revealed that patients with bilateral CLP scored worse than patients with unilateral CLP when treated in the fifties; more recently treated patients of both groups scored similarly.

show abstract

“…[24][25][26] This technique is also useful for obtaining cleft profiles of specific patient types. 27 Because patient photographs can now be uploaded to computers and analyzed using software, more delicate measurements can be performed by various observers. Different surgeons can evaluate the results according to their understanding of the anthropometric landmarks and draw conclusions about the surgical outcomes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A New Algorithm for Secondary Repair of Unilateral Cleft Lip Nasal Deformity

Chen,

Wang,

et al. 2023

The Laryngoscope

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesFollowing primary surgery for unilateral cleft lip palate (UCLP), cleft lip nasal deformities (CLNDs) (nasal asymmetry, collapsed nasal alae, and a widened alar base) are generally inevitable and often require secondary rhinoplasty. However, reconstructing a cleft nose with an alar tissue deficiency remains challenging for rhinoplasty surgeons.MethodsThe manifestations of common deformities are described herein, and a secondary rhinoplasty technique for unilateral CLNDs using a nasolabial flap (NLF) has been proposed for patients with alar tissue deficiency. Secondary rhinoplasties were performed in 12 patients with unilateral CLNDs between 2020 and 2021 using a NLF. Photogrammetric measurements were performed preoperatively and postoperatively. A total of 12 flaps were successfully transferred. Ten patients were followed up for >1 year.ResultsSignificant postoperative decreases in nasal alar width were measured in both the base view (p < 0.050) and the frontal view (p < 0.050). Despite the additional facial scars that occurred in some cases, all patients were satisfied with the aesthetic effects.ConclusionsThe NLF achieved satisfactory results in secondary rhinoplasty of unilateral CLND for patients with nasal tissue deficiencies in whom the surgeon weighed the potential benefits over postoperative scarring.Level of Evidence4 Laryngoscope, 2023

show abstract

Comparative Assessment of the Cleft Profile by Patients with Cleft Lip and Palate, Cleft Surgeons, and Lay People

Abstract: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Cited by 8 publications

References 19 publications

The Cleft Aesthetic Rating Scale for 18-Year-Old Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patients

The Cleft Aesthetic Rating Scale for 18-Year-Old Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patients

Facial Aesthetics in Young Adults after Cleft Lip and Palate Treatment over Five Decades

A New Algorithm for Secondary Repair of Unilateral Cleft Lip Nasal Deformity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About