J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019; 45(3): 141~151
Unilateral cleft lip: evaluation and comparison of treatment outcome with two surgical techniques based on qualitative (subject/guardian and professional) assessment
Adekunle Moses Adetayo1,2, Modupe Olushola Adetayo3, Wasiu Lanre Adeyemo4, Olutayo O. James4, Michael O. Adeyemi4
1Department of Surgery,
3Department of Biochemistry, Benjamin Carson School of Medicine, Babcock University,
2Dental Unit, Babcock University Teaching Hospital, Ilishan-Remo,
4Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Department of Surgery, Lagos University Teaching Hospital, Idi-Araba, Nigeria
Adekunle Moses Adetayo
Department of Surgery, Benjamin Carson School of Medicine, Babcock University, PMB 4003, Ilishan-Remo, Ogun State 121103, Nigeria
TEL: +234-8038337845 FAX: +234-08087027716
E-mail: adetayoa@babcock.edu.ng
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7318-0810
Received July 20, 2018; Revised September 25, 2018; Accepted October 16, 2018.; Published online June 30, 2019.
© The Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.. All rights reserved.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Objectives: The outcomes of the treatment of unilateral cleft lip can vary considerably due to variations in repair techniques. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare treatment outcomes of surgical repair of unilateral cleft lip using either the Tennison–Randall or Millard technique based on (qualitative) parent/subject and professional assessments.
Materials and Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, controlled study conducted at Lagos University Teaching Hospital between January 2013 and July 2014. A total of 56 subjects with unilateral cleft lip presenting for primary surgery who satisfied the inclusion criteria were recruited for the study. Subjects were randomly allocated to surgical groups A or B through balloting. Group A underwent cleft repair with the Tennison–Randall technique, while group B underwent cleft repair with the Millard rotation advancement technique. Surgical outcome was assessed using qualitative evaluation by the guardian/subject and independent assessors based on a modified form of the criteria described by Christofides and colleagues.
Results: Of the 56 subjects enrolled in this study, 32 were male, with a male to female ratio of 1.3:1. Fifteen of the guardians/subjects in the Tennison–Randall group were most bothered about the lower part of the residual lip scar, while 12 guardians/subjects in the in the Millard group were most bothered about the upper part of the scar. More noses were judged to be flattened in the Millard group than in the Tennison–Randall group. Assessors observed a striking disparity in scar transgression of the philtral ridges between the two groups.
Conclusion: Essentially, there were no major difference in the overall results between Millard rotation-advancement and Tennison–Randall repairs. Both Millard and Tennison–Randall’s techniques require significant improvements to improve the appearance of the scar on the upper part and lower part of the lip, respectively.
Keywords: Unilateral cleft lip, Repair techniques, Evaluation of surgical outcome

Current Issue

25 October 2019
Vol. 45
No. 5 pp. 231~299

Indexed in