Quantitative Evaluation of Nasolabial Alterations following Nasoalveolar Molding (NAM) Therapy in Patients with Unilateral Cleft Lip

Mairaj K. Ahmed; Anthony H. Bui; Rebecca Barnett; Joseph J. Rousso

doi:10.1055/s-0038-1675633

Facial Plastic Surgery, Table of Contents

Facial Plast Surg 2019; 35(01): 073-077
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1675633

Original Research

Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Quantitative Evaluation of Nasolabial Alterations following Nasoalveolar Molding (NAM) Therapy in Patients with Unilateral Cleft Lip

Authors

Mairaj K. Ahmed

¹Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Departments of Dentistry/Oral Maxillofacial Surgery, Otolaryngology and Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
Anthony H. Bui

²Departments of Surgery and Medical Education, The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
Rebecca Barnett

⁴College of Arts and Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
Joseph J. Rousso

²Departments of Surgery and Medical Education, The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York

³Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, The New York Eye and Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai, New York, New York

Abstract

The clinical benefit of nasoalveolar molding (NAM) is actively debated between cleft centers without clear consensus. Nasolabial measurements were performed on pediatric patients with unilateral clefts of the lip, with or without cleft palate, at an academic cleft/craniofacial center prior to and following NAM therapy between June 2015 and August 2016. The parameters of interest were: columella height and width, cleft nostril height and width, and lip width. Measurements were performed using photographs taken alongside a reference object. The image output was then scaled to the size of the reference object and the capture angle. Intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated to assess reliability of the photographic measurements. Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation [SD]) were calculated to characterize the pre- and post-NAM measurements. Student's t-tests were performed to compare the pre-NAM versus post-NAM measurements. The primary objective was to measure the effect of NAM on the nasal aesthetic units that are known to be anatomically aberrant in the cleft lip patient. Nine patients were included in this study. Average pre-NAM age was 2.5 weeks, and average post-NAM age was 13 weeks. Average columellar height increased from 3.70 mm (SD = 0.14) pre-NAM to 5.85 mm (SD = 1.96) post-NAM (p < 0.01); average columellar width increased from 4.71 mm (SD = 0.49) to 5.93 mm (SD = 0.71) (p < 0.01); average cleft nostril height increased from 3.54 mm (SD = 2.97) to 6.81 mm (SD = 2.98) (p = 0.01); and average cleft nostril width decreased from 15.46 mm (SD = 2.91) to 11.05 mm (SD = 1.01) (p = 0.01). Average lip width decreased from 34.61 mm (SD = 1.73) to 33.87 mm (SD = 3.67); however, this change was not statistically significant (p = 0.16). This study objectively quantifies positive changes in nasal aesthetics associated with NAM therapy, providing further evidence for its utility as a presurgical treatment modality for optimal aesthetic nasal results in the unilateral cleft lip patient. The major limitation of this study was a lack of control group, as our center universally treats complete unilateral cleft lip patients with NAM therapy. However, the authors strongly believe that the positive aesthetic nasal findings would persist if compared with a non-NAM control group.

Keywords

cleft Lip - nasoalveolar molding - pediatric facial plastic surgery - cleft nasal deformity

Full Text

References

References
1 Grayson BH, Santiago PE, Brecht LE, Cutting CB. Presurgical nasoalveolar molding in infants with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1999; 36 (06) 486-498
2 Grayson BH, Cutting CB. Presurgical nasoalveolar orthopedic molding in primary correction of the nose, lip, and alveolus of infants born with unilateral and bilateral clefts. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2001; 38 (03) 193-198
3 Shetye PR. Presurgical infant orthopedics. J Craniofac Surg 2012; 23 (01) 210-211
4 Abbott MM, Meara JG. Nasoalveolar molding in cleft care: is it efficacious?. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130 (03) 659-666
5 Maillard S, Retrouvey J-M, Ahmed MK, Taub PJ. Correlation between nasoalveolar molding and surgical, aesthetic, functional and socioeconomic outcomes following primary repair surgery: a systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Res 2017; 8 (03) e2
6 Rubin MS, Clouston S, Ahmed MM. , et al. Assessment of presurgical clefts and predicted surgical outcome in patients treated with and without nasoalveolar molding. J Craniofac Surg 2015; 26 (01) 71-75
7 Broder HL, Flores RL, Clouston S. , et al. Surgeon's and caregivers' appraisals of primary cleft lip treatment with and without nasoalveolar molding: a prospective multicenter pilot study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 137 (03) 938-945
8 Santiago PE, Grayson BH, Cutting CB, Gianoutsos MP, Brecht LE, Kwon SM. Reduced need for alveolar bone grafting by presurgical orthopedics and primary gingivoperiosteoplasty. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1998; 35 (01) 77-80
9 Patel PA, Rubin MS, Clouston S. , et al. Comparative study of early secondary nasal revisions and costs in patients with clefts treated with and without nasoalveolar molding. J Craniofac Surg 2015; 26 (04) 1229-1233
10 Pfeifer TM, Grayson BH, Cutting CB. Nasoalveolar molding and gingivoperiosteoplasty versus alveolar bone graft: an outcome analysis of costs in the treatment of unilateral cleft alveolus. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2002; 39 (01) 26-29
11 Grayson BH, Garfinkle JS. Early cleft management: the case for nasoalveolar molding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014; 145 (02) 134-142
12 Hathaway RR, Long Jr RE. Early cleft management: in search of evidence. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014; 145 (02) 135-141
13 van der Heijden P, Dijkstra PU, Stellingsma C, van der Laan BF, Korsten-Meijer AGW, Goorhuis-Brouwer SM. Limited evidence for the effect of presurgical nasoalveolar molding in unilateral cleft on nasal symmetry: a call for unified research. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131 (01) 62e-71e
14 Chang C-S, Liao Y-F, Wallace CG. , et al. Long-term comparison of the results of four techniques used for bilateral cleft nose repair: a single surgeon's experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 134 (06) 926e-936e
15 Maull DJ, Grayson BH, Cutting CB. , et al. Long-term effects of nasoalveolar molding on three-dimensional nasal shape in unilateral clefts. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1999; 36 (05) 391-397
16 Barillas I, Dec W, Warren SM, Cutting CB, Grayson BH. Nasoalveolar molding improves long-term nasal symmetry in complete unilateral cleft lip-cleft palate patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 123 (03) 1002-1006
17 Lee CTH, Garfinkle JS, Warren SM, Brecht LE, Cutting CB, Grayson BH. Nasoalveolar molding improves appearance of children with bilateral cleft lip-cleft palate. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 122 (04) 1131-1137
18 Shetty V, Agrawal RK, Sailer HF. Long-term effect of presurgical nasoalveolar molding on growth of maxillary arch in unilateral cleft lip and palate: randomized controlled trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017; 46 (08) 977-987
19 Liang Z, Yao J, Chen PKT, Zheng C, Yang J. Effect of presurgical nasoalveolar molding on nasal symmetry in unilateral complete cleft lip/palate patients after primary cheiloplasty without concomitant nasal cartilage dissection: early childhood evaluation. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2018; ; (February): 14296
20 Clark SL, Teichgraeber JF, Fleshman RG. , et al. Long-term treatment outcome of presurgical nasoalveolar molding in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. J Craniofac Surg 2011; 22 (01) 333-336
21 Shaye D, Liu CC, Tollefson TT. Cleft lip and palate: an evidence-based review. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2015; 23 (03) 357-372