Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:The long-term effects of nasoalveolar molding (NAM) on patients with bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) are unknown. The authors report clinical outcomes of facially mature patients with complete BCLP who underwent NAM and gingivoperiosteoplasty (GPP). METHODS:A single-institution retrospective study of nonsyndromic patients with complete BCLP who underwent NAM between 1991 and 2000 was performed. All study patients were followed to skeletal maturity, at which time a lateral cephalogram was obtained. The total number of cleft operations and cephalometric measures was compared with a previously published external cohort of patients with complete and incomplete BCLP in which a minority (16.7%) underwent presurgical orthopedics before cleft lip repair without GPP. RESULTS:Twenty-four patients with BCLP comprised the study cohort. All patients underwent GPP, 13 (54.2%) underwent alveolar bone graft, and nine (37.5%) required speech surgery. The median number of operations per patient was five (interquartile range, two), compared with eight (interquartile range, three) in the external cohort ( P < 0.001). Average age at the time of lateral cephalogram was 18.64 years (1.92). There was no significant difference between our cohort and the external cohort with respect to sella-nasion-point A angle (SNA) [73 degrees (6 degrees) versus 75 degrees (11 degrees); P = 0.186] or sella-nasion-point B angle (SNA) [78 degrees (6 degrees) versus 74 degrees (9 degrees); P = 0.574]. Median ANB (SNA - SNB) was -3 degrees (5 degrees) compared with -1 degree (7 degrees; P = 0.024). Twenty patients (83.3%) underwent orthognathic surgery. CONCLUSION:Patients with BCLP who underwent NAM and GPP had significantly fewer total cleft operations and mixed midface growth outcomes at facial maturity compared with patients who did not undergo this treatment protocol. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Therapeutic, III.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Gingivoperiosteoplasty (GPP) can avoid secondary alveolar bone graft in up to 60% of patients. The effects of GPP on maxillary growth are a concern. However, palatoplasty can also negatively impact facial growth. This study quantifies the isolated effects of GPP and cleft palate repair on maxillary growth at the age of mixed dentition. METHODS:A single institution, retrospective study of all patients undergoing primary reconstruction for unilateral cleft lip and alveolus (CLA) or cleft lip and palate (CLP) was performed. Study patients had lateral cephalograms at age of mixed dentition. Patients were stratified into four groups: CLA with GPP (CLA+GPP), CLA without GPP (CLA-GPP), CLP with GPP (CLP+GPP), and CLP without GPP (CLP-GPP). Cephalometric measurements included: sella-nasion-point A (SNA), sella-nasion-point B (SNB), and A point-nasion-B point (ANB). Landmarks were compared between patient groups and to Eurocleft Center D data. RESULTS:110 patients met inclusion criteria: 7 CLA-GPP, 16 CLA+GPP, 24 CLP-GPP, and 63 CLP+GPP patients. There were no significant differences in SNA, SNB, and ANB between CLA+GPP and CLA-GPP, or between CLP+GPP and CLP-GPP groups. In patients who did not receive GPP, SNA was significantly lower in patients with a cleft palate compared to patients with an intact palate (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in SNA or SNB of CLP-GPP or CLP+GPP groups when compared to Eurocleft data. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:When controlling for the effects of cleft palate repair, GPP does not appear to negatively affect midface growth at the age of mixed dentition.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:This paper describes the changes in maxillary arch morphology in infants with bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) following nasoalveolar molding (NAM) and with follow up to assess the need for secondary alveolar bone grafting (ABG) and premaxillary repositioning surgery at preadolescence. METHODS/DESCRIPTION/UNASSIGNED:Treatment records of infants with BCLP treated with NAM between 2003 and 2013 were reviewed. Patients with complete BCLP who underwent NAM and had complete sets of maxillary casts at T 0 pre-NAM (mean = 27 days), T 1 post-NAM (mean = 6 months and 5 days), and T 2 before palate surgery (mean = 11 months and 15 days) were included. The sample comprised 23 infants (18 male, 5 female). Casts were digitized and analyzed using three dimensional software. The need for secondary ABG and premaxillary repositioning surgery was assessed at preadolescent follow-up (mean = 8.3 years). RESULTS:Cleft width was reduced on average by 4.73 mm (SD ± 3.15 mm) and 6.56 mm (SD ± 4.65) on the right and left sides, respectively. At T 1, 13 (56.52%) patients underwent bilateral gingivoperiosteoplasty (GPP), 8 (34.78%) patients unilateral GPP, and 2 patients (8.7%) did not undergo GPP. 34/46 clefts sites (73.91%) underwent GPP while 12 (26.08%) did not. At preadolescent follow-up of 19 patients, 7 patients (36.84%) did not need ABG on either side, 8 (42.10%) needed ABG on 1 side, and 4 (21.05%) needed ABG on both sides. None of the patients needed premaxillary repositioning surgery. CONCLUSIONS:Nasoalveolar molding treatment significantly improves the position of the premaxilla before primary repair, and there is a significant reduction in the need for secondary ABG and premaxillary repositioning surgery at preadolescence.

OBJECTIVE:The aim of this investigation is to determine if the nasal form of patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) treated with pre-surgical nasoalveolar molding (NAM) therapy, primary lip-nose surgery, and post-surgical Nostril Retainer (PSNR) is different from patients treated with pre-surgical NAM and primary lip and nose surgery alone. DESIGN/METHODS:A cross-sectional, retrospective review of 50 consecutive non-syndromic patients with UCLP: 24 treated with NAM and primary lip-nose surgery followed by PSNR (Group I) compared to 26 patients treated with NAM and primary lip-nose surgery without PSNR (Group II). Polyvinyl siloxane nasal impressions were performed at the average age of 12 months and 6 days. Bilateral measurements of alar width at maximum convexity, total alar base width, nasal tip projection, columella length, and nostril aperture width and height were recorded. Statistical comparison of cleft versus non-cleft side nasal measurements were performed within Group I and Group II, as well as comparison of the difference between the two groups. RESULTS:Cleft side nasal dimension was statistically significantly better in Group I than Group II across all measures except nasal projection (P<0.05). Group I showed less difference between the cleft and non-cleft side in all six measurements than Group II (p<0.05). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:There is a significant difference in the nasal shape of patients who underwent PSNR compared to those that did not. The patients who used PSNR showed better nasal shape at the average age of 12 months than the control group.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Interactive surgical simulation using the finite element method to model human skin mechanics has been an elusive goal. Mass-spring networks, while fast, do not provide the required accuracy. METHODS:This paper presents an interactive, cognitive, facial flaps simulator based on a projective dynamics computational framework. Projective dynamics is able to generate rapid, stable results following changes to the facial soft tissues created by the surgeon, even in the face of sudden increases in skin resistance as its stretch limit is reached or collision between tissues occurs. Our prior work with the finite element method had been hampered by these considerations. Surgical tools are provided for; skin incision, undermining, deep tissue cutting, and excision. A spring-like "skin hook" is used for retraction. Spring-based sutures can be placed individually or automatically placed as a row between cardinal sutures. RESULTS:Examples of an Abbe/Estlander lip reconstruction, a paramedian forehead flap to the nose, a retroauricular flap reconstruction of the external ear, and a cervico-facial flap reconstruction of a cheek defect are presented. CONCLUSIONS:Projective dynamics has significant advantages over mass-spring and finite element methods as the physics backbone for interactive soft tissue surgical simulation.

BACKGROUND:In 1968, Ralph Millard published his "Millard II" method for repair of wide, complete unilateral cleft lip and nose deformity. In 1979, Murawski published a major modification of the Millard II procedure in Polish. This motif was taken up 8 years later by Mohler and 22 years later by Cutting. The Murawski variation on the Millard II procedure has become a dominant motif in unilateral cleft lip repair worldwide. This brief report intends to introduce the method to the English language literature and present long-term results. METHODS:The Murawski method alters the Millard II procedure by changing the upper medial curve into a point in the columellar base. This creates a broad C flap used to fill the entire defect produced by downward rotation of the medial lip. Millard's lateral advancement flap becomes unnecessary. A lateral approach to primary nasal reconstruction allows the lateral C flap to be used to construct the nasal floor and sill. The method is described using a physics-based surgical simulator. RESULTS:Long-term results of the method are demonstrated with four patients with 15 to 25-year follow-up. None of these patients had any revisions to the lip or nose. CONCLUSIONS:The Murawski repair was the first to modify the Millard II repair by sharpening the medial columellar incision, eliminating the need for a lateral advancement flap. This motif was put forth in the years to follow by Mohler and Cutting. Long-term results of the method are presented.

AIM/OBJECTIVE:To assess treatment outcome and 1-year stability of LeFort I advancement in patients with complete cleft lip and palate. METHODS:Thirty-five patients (age 20.65 ± 2.20 years) with unilateral (n = 25) or bilateral (n = 10) complete cleft lip and palate who underwent LeFort I advancement were included.Lateral cephalograms before surgery (T1), immediately postsurgery (T2), and at 1-year follow-up (T3) were superimposed, and the position of anterior nasal spine (ANS), A-point, and U1 Tip assessed using an x, y coordinate system. Differences between landmark positions at the 3-time points were analyzed using paired sample t-tests, with a significance defined as α ≤ 0.05. RESULTS:The mean surgical advancement in the horizontal direction (T2-T1) was 6.50 ± 2.62 mm at ANS (P < 0.001) and 7.05 ± 2.51 mm at A-point (P < 0.001). At a 1-year follow-up (T3-T2), the mean horizontal relapse at ANS was -1.41 ± 1.89 mm (P < 0.001) and -0.79 ± 1.48 mm at A-point (P 0.003). Mean horizontal relapse was 21.7% and 11% of surgical advancement when assessed at ANS and A-point, respectively. The central incisor tip position remained stable during the postsurgical period (0.12 ± 2.11 mm, P 0.732). At A-point, the mean vertical surgical change (T2-T1) was -0.96 ± 2.57 mm (P < 0.001). No significant post-treatment (T3-T2) vertical changes were detected at ANS or A-point. Phenotypic stability was excellent, with all patients maintaining positive overjet at 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS:LeFort I advancement in complete cleft lip and palate is stable, with less than a 2 mm relapse after 1-year. Surgical overcorrection by 10% to 20% is recommended to compensate for the expected skeletal relapse.

OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To compare the prevalence of dental malformations and agenesis in patients who received or did not receive gingivoperiosteoplasty (GPP). DESIGN/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective cohort study. PATIENTS/UNASSIGNED:Review of patients born January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2007, with unilateral cleft lip and alveolus, with or without clefting of the secondary palate, who received GPP and/or secondary alveolar bone grafting (ABG). Patients were included if they had clinical images and dental radiographs available at ages 5 to 9 and 10 to 12 years. Ninety-four patients met the inclusion criteria; 46 treated with GPP, and 48 who did not receive GPP. OUTCOME MEASURES/UNASSIGNED:tests. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Cleft side lateral incisors were absent in 54% of GPP patients, compared to 50% in the no-GPP group. Two patients in the GPP group and 1 in the no-GPP group had supernumerary lateral incisors. Most lateral incisors were undersized or peg shaped in both the no-GPP (83.3%) and GPP (71.4%) groups. In the GPP group, 5 (10.9%) patients exhibited central incisor agenesis, and 3 had significant hypoplasia. In the no-GPP group, 4 (8.3%) patients exhibited central incisor agenesis, and 5 (10.5%) significant hypoplasia. These differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Gingivoperiosteoplasty was not associated with increased prevalence of dental malformation or agenesis. When performed appropriately, GPP is a safe treatment technique that does not increase the risk of dental anomalies.

BACKGROUND:The authors present outcomes analysis of the nasoalveolar molding treatment protocol in patients with a cleft followed from birth to facial maturity. METHODS:A single-institution retrospective review was conducted of cleft patients who underwent nasoalveolar molding between 1990 and 2000. Collected data included surgical and orthodontic outcomes and incidence of gingivoperiosteoplasty, alveolar bone grafting, surgery for velopharyngeal insufficiency, palatal fistula repair, orthognathic surgery, nose and/or lip revision, and facial growth. RESULTS:One hundred seven patients met inclusion criteria (69 with unilateral and 38 with bilateral cleft lip and palate). Eighty-five percent (91 of 107) underwent gingivoperiosteoplasty (unilateral: 78 percent, 54 of 69; bilateral: 97 percent, 37 of 38). Of those patients, 57 percent (52 of 91) did not require alveolar bone grafting (unilateral: 59 percent, 32 of 54; bilateral: 54 percent, 20 of 37). Twelve percent (13 of 107) of all study patients underwent revision surgery to the lip and/or nose before facial maturity (unilateral: 9 percent, six of 69; bilateral: 18 percent, seven of 38). Nineteen percent (20 of 107) did not require a revision surgery, alveolar bone grafting, or orthognathic surgery (unilateral: 20 percent, 14 of 69; bilateral: 16 percent, six of 38). Cephalometric analysis was performed on all patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. No significant statistical difference was found in maxillary position or facial proportion. Average age at last follow-up was 20 years (range, 15 years 4 months to 26 years 10 months). CONCLUSIONS:Nasoalveolar molding demonstrates a low rate of soft-tissue revision and alveolar bone grafting, and a low number of total operations per patient from birth to facial maturity. Facial growth analysis at facial maturity in patients who underwent gingivoperiosteoplasty and nasoalveolar molding suggests that this proposal may not hinder midface growth. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic, IV.

Background/Purpose: For the past 25 years computer-based simulation of cleft lip repair has been an elusive goal. To date, interactive 3D models have allowed students to make preoperative incision markings. Animation generated blend shapes allow premodeled surgical animations to be played back in 3D video game format. Neither of these efforts allow the student to actually perform his/her own lip repair. This article presents what we believe to be the first cleft lip simulator to allow the student to prospectively do complete cleft lip/ nose corrections. Historical procedures and proposed new ones can be performed. A deeper level of understanding can be obtained using this cognitive experiential approach without injuring a real patient. Methods/Description: A 3D solid model of a complete unilateral cleft lip/nose has been prepared based on a laser scan of an actual patient. Procedures are performed using a surgical toolkit consisting of (1) skin hooks, (2) skin/mucosa scalpel, (3) skin and periosteal undermine tool, (4) deep cut tool for cutting through muscle, fat, and cartilage, and (5) a suture tool. First order biologically accurate physics are provided by modeling the solids as a half million tetrahedra. Projective dynamics are used to implement biphasic tissue behavior in which at low strain Hooke's law elasticity is provided, but as strain exceeds 14% the tissue becomes much stiffer to model the commonly observed the flap won't reach phenomenon. Collision is modeled between the teeth and bone of the maxilla and the undersurface of the lip using a Schur complement approach. Near real-time performance is provided on a laptop computer in 3D video game format. A history files may be recorded of the sequence of actions performed by the surgeon.
Result(s): A demonstration of the model and the surgical toolset will be performed in real time. A full cleft lip/nose repair using the simulator will be demonstrated using its history feature.
Conclusion(s): A first order biophysically accurate simulator of cleft lip and nose repair has been developed. It permits the student to cognitively explore different methods of repair and store his/her surgical sequence. This simulator has application in experiential education, proficiency testing, and the design of new surgical procedures