Functional Outcomes of Cleft Lip Surgery. Part II: Quantification of Nasolabial Movement

Abstract

The objective measurement of movement may be used as an outcome measure for cleft lip surgery.

Fast-Degradable Microbeads Encapsulating Human Umbilical Cord Stem Cells in Alginate for Muscle Tissue Engineering

“…For example, after primary lip repair, many patients have a residual impairment in movement and the facial esthetics is compromised. [67][68][69] The ability to supplement and/or generate tissue in the cleft area may be of significant advantage for both the surgeon and the patient. Moreover, as discussed earlier, the method described here has the potential to be of benefit for many other patients with both congenital and acquired muscle deficiencies and disorders.…”

Influence of Objective Three-Dimensional Measures and Movement Images on Surgeon Treatment Planning for Lip Revision Surgery

“…The results demonstrated considerable bias and poor interrater reliability among the raters, a finding that led Morrant and Shaw (1996) to conclude that research in this area was sorely lacking and other researchers to recommend the development of more objective measures of facial movement (Salgado et al, 2010). Our own findings in this regard indicated poor agreement among surgeons experienced in cleft care when rating the severity of the cleft scar in patients whose faces were in repose and during various animated movements (Trotman et al, 2007). Specifically, surgeons’ consistency in rating repeated facial views of the same patient was moderate to excellent; however, the overall agreement among surgeons when rating individual patients was low to moderate.…”

“…There have been only a few studies in which professionals rated nasolabial movements (Morrant et al, 1996; Ritter et al, 2002; Trotman et al, 2003; Trotman et al, 2007). The results demonstrated considerable bias and poor interrater reliability among the raters, a finding that led Morrant and Shaw (1996) to conclude that research in this area was sorely lacking and other researchers to recommend the development of more objective measures of facial movement (Salgado et al, 2010).…”

“…Specifically, surgeons’ consistency in rating repeated facial views of the same patient was moderate to excellent; however, the overall agreement among surgeons when rating individual patients was low to moderate. Moreover, the surgeons demonstrated wide variation in their recommendations for (or against) “the need for revision surgery” when evaluating these same patients (Trotman et al, 2007). These conflicting and often confusing findings attest to the need for more patient-centered, objective measures to supplement surgeons’ subjective evaluation, along with a standardized methodological approach for evaluation that can be used for treatment planning and to assess treatment outcomes (Salgado et al, 2010; Trotman et al, 2010).…”

“…Over the past several years, our research team has developed and demonstrated the utility of novel objective techniques to improve diagnosis, treatment planning, and outcomes for lip repair and revision (Trotman et al, 2007; Tanikawa et al, 2010; Trotman et al, 2010; Faraway et al, 2011; Trotman, 2011). These research developments have been part of an ongoing clinical trial (NCT00070811).…”