Principles of Cleft Lip Repair: Conventions, …...cleft palate). Each deformity is presented in a “principles-based” manner. For unilateral cleft lip, the authors discuss common

Copyright © 2017 American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

www.PRSJournal.com764e

The surgical care of children with orofacial clefts is a field of such breadth, depth, and historical richness that it represents a unique

surgical subspecialty in its own right. Testament to the complexity of cleft care, different aspects of this topic have been covered periodically by this Continuing Medical Education/Maintenance of Certification series. For those desiring additional background in cleft epidemiology, anatomy, clas-sification, and treatment, the reader is referred to two prior reviews, expertly written by Monson et al.1 and by Fisher and Sommerlad.2

The goal of the present work is to expound on the modern techniques of unilateral and bilateral cleft lip repair, to provide clarification on existing points of controversy, and to illustrate methods developed to avoid revision procedures. Specifi-cally, we present the subject matter in a “princi-ples-based” manner that we hope will complement prior reviews and will provide an instructive per-spective for the reader. While attempting to pro-vide an objective view of contemporary practices, the authors would be remiss in not acknowledging that it is difficult to completely exclude personal

preferences, and also that certain omissions may occur herein for the sake of brevity.

Planning: Timing and Sequence of inTervenTionS

Cleft lip repair may be performed safely at any age; however, standard practice among many cleft teams is to repair the cleft lip in infancy, between 3 and 6 months of age.3 The plan of care and choice of operative technique are dependent on the specific cleft phenotype and the age at presen-tation. Cleft lip only may be repaired directly. In the cases of cleft lip with cleft alveolus and cleft lip with cleft palate, preliminary preparation may be warranted before cheiloplasty. These concepts are explored further in the sections below.

PreSurgical PreParaTion

Presurgical infant orthopedicsPresurgical infant orthopedics refers to remod-

eling of the dentofacial skeleton using orthodontic

disclosure: The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this article.

Copyright © 2017 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons

DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003148

Jeffrey R. Marcus, M.D. Alexander C. Allori, M.D.,

M.P.H.Pedro E. Santiago, D.M.D.

Durham, N.C.

learning objectives: After reading this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Understand the principles of contemporary methods for repair of unilat-eral and bilateral cleft lip. 2. Understand the design elements of a poor repair that predispose to a suboptimal outcome.Summary: The authors describe the evaluation and management of unilat-eral and bilateral cleft lip (with or without cleft alveolus and with or without cleft palate). Each deformity is presented in a “principles-based” manner. For unilateral cleft lip, the authors discuss common modifications of rotation-ad-vancement and Fisher’s anatomical subunit approach. In expert hands, both techniques can give excellent results. For bilateral cleft lip, Mulliken’s method is presented. Methods for synchronous correction of the cleft lip nasal defor-mity are also discussed. (Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 139: 764e, 2017.)

From the Division of Plastic, Maxillofacial, and Oral Surgery, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center; and Duke Cleft and Craniofacial Center, Duke Chil-dren’s Hospital.Received for publication January 6, 2016; accepted July 6, 2016.

Principles of Cleft Lip Repair: Conventions, Commonalities, and Controversies

Related Video content is available for this article. The videos can be found under the “Related Videos” section of the full-text article, or, for Ovid users, using the URL citations published in the article.

RELATED VIDEO CONTENT IS AVAILABLE ONLINE.

CME


Volume 139, Number 3 • Principalization of Cleft Lip Repair

765e

techniques. In general, manipulation of the alveolar arch may be accomplished passively (e.g., by means of lip taping or labial/nasolabial adhesion) or actively (e.g., through Georgiade-Latham devices and nasoalveolar molding appliances). The various methods—and even the very concept of presurgical infant orthopedics in general—have been debated fiercely4–7; however, we have found both the Geor-giade-Latham device and nasoalveolar molding to be effective at rotating the greater segment of unilat-eral cleft lip with cleft alveolus or unilateral cleft lip with cleft palate, and at widening a collapsed maxil-lary arch and repositioning the projecting/proclined premaxilla in bilateral cleft lip with cleft alveolus or bilateral cleft lip with cleft palate. Duration of therapy is typically shorter for the Georgiade-Latham appli-ance (approximately 4 to 6 weeks) compared with nasoalveolar molding (approximately 3 to 4 months). Both techniques require expert planning and follow-up care from a pediatric dentist and/or craniofa-cial orthodontist throughout this period. Although requiring more time for completion, nasoalveolar molding has the advantage of molding the nose using outrigger nasal prongs. An excellent point/counter-point article summarizing the merits and demerits of each technique was recently published.4,5

labial adhesionPresurgical infant orthopedics requires the

expertise of a craniofacial orthodontist and involves weekly or biweekly clinic visits. This requirement makes presurgical infant orthopedics unavailable in many geographic areas and unfeasible for some families. In situations where presurgical infant orthopedics is not used, the surgeon may opt to perform labial (or nasolabial) adhesion as a prepa-ratory step for subsequent definitive cheiloplasty. Principally, adhesion is intended to remodel the dentoalveolar segments by way of the mechanical forces of the soft-tissue envelope. In performing the adhesion, the surgeon is advised to first draw the markings for the definitive cheiloplasty (as described in the sections below) and then perform the adhesion using the tissues of the cleft margins that will be discarded in the subsequent definitive repair. Typically, muscular dissection is kept to a minimum during the adhesion. A description of the technique of labial adhesion is available.8

rePair of unilaTeral clefT liP

Principles and objectivesThe preparatory methods above only set the

stage for the definitive cheiloplasty. Ultimately,

success in cleft lip repair is equally dependent on repair design and technical skill: Neither a sound design executed poorly nor a flawed design performed perfectly can be expected to yield a favorable result. Since 1900, the story of unilateral cleft lip repair has been a quest to innovate and disseminate the “optimal design” (a process inevitably rife with disagreements and disputes). Rather, we posit that although each technique has advantages and disadvan-tages, a distillation of the “lessons learned” from each technique will yield a common set of principles to guide repair of unilateral cleft lip (Table 1).

Moreover, as is discussed thoroughly below, it is quite clear that contemporary modifications of rotation-advancement and geometric-style repairs (i.e., Fisher anatomical subunit repair), in expert hands, are both capable of producing superb results. We believe that each technique offers advantages and has certain inherent compro-mises. The differences between techniques relate predominantly to placement of skin incisions—that is, regardless of technique chosen, a surgeon may use the same maneuvers for mucosal, gingi-val, and muscular repair, and even for correction of the nasal deformity. Therefore, in discussing the relative advantages and disadvantages of rota-tion-advancement and the Fisher technique, we are primarily discussing location and orientation of the scars and the resulting effect on symmetry. For the individual surgeon, a thorough under-standing of both approaches enables one to more responsibly carry out his or her preferred tech-nique. Indeed, the expert surgeon may skillfully adapt his or her choice of incision to best match the patient’s needs.

early Techniques of unilateral cleft lip repairUntil the 1930s, most repairs were performed

by paring the cleft margins and approximating the incised edges in a straight line. In a complete cleft (and most incomplete clefts), the vertical heights of the lip on the normal and cleft sides are unequal (Fig. 1). Innovations over the sub-sequent 20 to 30 years incorporated geometric designs to address this problem (e.g., the Ten-nison and LeMesurier methods) (Fig. 2). These were milestones in cleft lip repair that inge-niously solved the problem of vertical height defi-ciency and balanced the Cupid’s bow; however, this came at the expense of creating scars that disrupted the continuity of the philtral column, often quite visibly.


766e

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery • March 2017

The era of rotation-advancementIn 1955, Millard introduced the rotation-

advancement technique that would become the predominant technique used worldwide. Millard sought to address the shortcomings of the geomet-ric repairs by providing balance to Cupid’s bow without interrupting the continuity of the phil-tral column. The original rotation-advancement design (Fig. 3, above) provided a scar more closely resembling a continuous philtral column; however, because the rotation incision extended from the apex of the philtral ridge on the noncleft side (cphs point), the design inherently caused asymmetry of the philtral ridges, which met at this point (Fig. 4). To make the scar less oblique, Millard himself modi-fied the technique by adding a back-cut that would

allow for greater rotation of the medial segment; this modification is commonly referred to as the “Millard II” technique (Fig. 3, below). The shortcom-ing of this modification is the potential for scars to lie more inferiorly, where they are more noticeable.

Millard’s rotation-advancement approach de-parted conceptually from all other techniques at the time because the matter of vertical height dis-parity (leveling of the Cupid’s bow, or equalizing the cleft-side and non–cleft-side cphs–cphi distance along the philtral ridge) was approached visually—a “cut-as-you-go” technique—rather than by strict geometric measurements. At the time, this was a radical change in philosophy; it was not immediately embraced, and it required an entire generation of young surgeons to lead the change in practice that

Table 1. Guiding Principles for Repair of Unilateral and Bilateral Cleft Lip

Unilateral cleft lip repair Design Design a closure interface (scar) that closely mirrors the contralateral philtral ridge in shape and length Limit the total scar burden inherent in the design Execution Create a symmetric and natural Cupid’s bow Match the volume of vermilion on each side of the cleft Restore muscular continuity such that normal lip movement results Create a labial sulcus of normal depth Create a normal nasal floor, nasal sill, and alar base Centralize the columella and elevate the columella baseBilateral cleft lip repair Planning and preparation Maintain (or establish) symmetry Prepare the projecting premaxilla Anticipate future changes that will occur with growth* Execution Construct a full central lip using lateral labial elements and discard prolabial vermilion Deepen the gingivolabial sulcus using premaxillary mucosa Establish muscular continuity primarily Address the nasal deformity synchronously*Particularly in the design of the size and shape of the philtral flap.

Fig. 1. Vertical length of complete and incomplete clefts. The vertical length of the lip on the noncleft side is greater than on the cleft side. This discrepancy, and scar con-tracture, were responsible for vertical deficiency and whistle deformity in straight-line repairs. Without a strategy to provide additional length to the cleft side, this resulted in a short lip on the cleft side with asymmetric vertical position of the Cupid’s bow peaks—an unbalanced Cupid’s bow.



767e

eventually occurred. In the 50 years since the intro-duction of the rotation-advancement, many further refinements have been proposed, including those by Byrd, Cutting, Mohler, Mulliken, Stal, and oth-ers.9,10 Arguably the most popular modification is that of Mohler, which is able to orient the incision to better mirror the vertical orientation of the con-tralateral philtral ridge11 (Figs. 5 and 6). Indeed, the orientation of the philtral ridge may be an impor-tant determinant for choice of location, orienta-tion, and shape of incision. By 2008, variants of the rotation-advancement technique were taught in 84 percent of plastic surgery training programs, with dominance of Mohler’s modification. Some of the popularity of the Mohler technique arose through its dissemination by Court Cutting, who demon-strated remarkable results with his “extended” Mohler method in conjunction with nasoalveolar molding (Fig. 6).12 The reader may review a surgi-cal video of a modified rotation-advancement pro-vided in a prior Continuing Medical Education/Maintenance of Certification article (http://links.lww.com/PRS/A914 and http://links.lww.com/PRS/A915, published in Monson LA, Kirschner RE, Losee JE. Primary repair of cleft lip and nasal defor-mity. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132:1040e–1053e).

fisher anatomical Subunit repairModified rotation-advancement techniques

address many goals but have two particular shortcomings:

1. Most rotation-advancement modifications incorporate a series of complex scars beneath the nose, including two three-point (T-point) closures. This not only disturbs the

continuity and aesthetics of the columellar-labial crease but also complicates placement of the traditional transcolumellar incision at the time of future open rhinoplasty (Fig. 7).

2. In rotation-advancement techniques that rely on rotation alone to increase the ver-tical length of the medial lip, the position of the Noordhoff point may be required to lie more lateral than desired to match the vertical height of the medial and lateral elements. Consequently, the horizontal length of the lateral lip element is short-ened (Figs. 8 and 9).

To address these concerns, Fisher devised the anatomical subunit approximation technique, which is a substantial evolution of the geometric-style repairs.13 The Fisher technique is illustrated in Figure 10, and a clinical case of left unilateral complete cleft lip, alveolus, and Veau III palate (without prior nasoalveolar molding) is provided in Figure 11 and Videos 1 through 3. (See video, Supplemental digital content 1, which displays cleft lip markings. This video is available in the “Related Videos” section of the full-text article on PRSJournal.com or at http://links.lww.com/PRS/C57. See video, Supplemental digital content 2, which displays part 1 of the cleft lip repair opera-tion. This video is available in the “Related Videos” section of the full-text article on PRSJournal.com or at http://links.lww.com/PRS/C58. See video, Supplemental digital content 3, which displays part 2 of the cleft lip repair operation. This video is available in the “Related Videos” section of the full-text article on PRSJournal.com or at http://links.lww.com/PRS/C59.) In addition, the readers may also review Dr. Fisher’s video from a prior

Fig. 2. LeMesurier and Tennison repairs. To address the issue of vertical inequality, these repairs included a geometrically designed skin flap from the lateral aspect of the cleft (the lesser segment) to augment the shortfall on the medial cleft side (the greater segment). These innovations provided vertical length and balanced the Cupid’s bow; however, both repairs disrupt the continuity of the philtral column, creating a visible asymmetry.

http://links.lww.com/PRS/A914




http://links.lww.com/PRS/C57






768e


Continuing Medical Education/Maintenance of Certification article (http://links.lww.com/PRS/A379 and http://links.lww.com/PRS/A380, pub-lished in Fisher DM, Sommerlad BC. Cleft lip, cleft palate, and velopharyngeal insufficiency. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:342e–360e).

Specifically, with regard to criticism 1, above, the Fisher repair places the scar pre-cisely along the interfaces of anatomical sub-units. Thus, the medial labial incision exactly mirrors the normal side philtral ridge. No scars are placed along the columella, nasal base, or ala, and the incision line is simple and continu-ous, without a T-point.

With regard to criticism 2, the Fisher method uses a cutaneous triangle above the white roll to directly adjust the height of the medial labial element (cphs–cphi). Traditional rotation-advancement does not include this triangle and thus relies solely on the rotation (superiorly) to increase the vertical height. If enough rotation is not obtained, the cleft-side cphi point is too high with respect to the non–cleft-side, result-ing in elevation of the Cupid’s bow peak. This result can worsen with any scar contracture that may occur. The inclusion of a cutaneous triangle directly equalizes the vertical length of the phil-tral ridges and also serves to break up this scar,

Fig. 3. Millard I and Millard II repairs. Rotation-advancement intended to provide equal vertical lip lengths and a balanced Cupid’s bow without disrupting the continu-ity of the philtral column. In the Millard I repair (above), a curvilinear incision along the medial aspect of the cleft provides downward rotation of the lip element. The defect created at the base of the columella/upper lip was repaired by the advancement flap created on the lateral aspect of the cleft by making a transverse incision along the nasal sill. The C-flap was retained in its entirety and inset transversely along the nasal sill. There were shortcomings in the original design, which Dr. Millard addressed in the subsequent Millard II design (below). Inconsistent provision of vertical length by means of rotation was one such concern. The Millard II added an additional back-cut along the rotation incision to permit greater rotation. The C-flap was then backed into the resulting defect, which also augmented the columella. The remainder of the C-flap was truncated. The Millard II, therefore, created two three-point closure sites, not previously present. In addition, the transverse advancement incision was carried more laterally, often extending around the alar crease, to permit further advance-ment and medial mobilization of the ala. Finally, a small triangular flap was suggested at the white roll to finalize balance of the Cupid’s bow and accentuate the white roll.






769e

which reduces the tendency toward scar contrac-ture. It is noteworthy that several contemporary rotation-advancement modifications have also incorporated inferior cutaneous triangles into their design.

addressing discrepancy of the vermilion Height: The noordhoff Triangular flap

Another milestone in cleft lip repair that is worth highlighting is the Noordhoff vermilion

triangular flap. The height of the dry vermilion on the medial labial element is invariably less than that on the lateral labial element. When a significant discrepancy in the heights of ver-milion is present, the result is a visible notch, or whistle deformity. Noordhoff described a technique to avoid this problem in which this excess vermilion on the lateral labial element is used to form a triangular flap that is inset at or just above the red line (Fig. 12).14 The ver-milion triangular flap has been incorporated into many contemporary repairs, including the Fisher method and several modifications of rotation-advancement.

rePair of THe BilaTeral clefT liP deformiTy

Principles and objectivesThere are seven principles15,16 that inform the

modern approach to bilateral cleft lip repair, sum-marized in Table 1. In the past, repair of the bilat-eral cleft lip was approached in the straight-line or geometric manner of unilateral cleft lip. To deal with the difficulty of the projecting premaxilla, which would put the labial repair under too much tension, repair of bilateral cleft lip was staged to correct one side first, followed by the other side. Many experts today have proposed that such staged repairs be abandoned, as this strategy destroys the symmetry with which most cases of bilateral cleft lip begin. In contemporary practice, premaxil-lary projection in the infant may be corrected by

Fig. 4. In traditional (nonmodified) rotation-advancement repairs, the peak of the cleft-side philtral column is designed to lie coincident with the peak of the normal side philtral col-umn or just medial to it. This can create a closure/scar that lies obliquely across the philtrum. A repair technique that is capable of matching the obliquity or vertical nature of the normal phil-tral column may alleviate this asymmetry.

Fig. 5. Lester Mohler demonstrated that the majority of school age children he studied had philtral columns that were more vertical in orientation, extending downward from the lateral aspects of the columella and that only a minority had philtral columns that joined together at or below the base of the columella. The shape of the philtral column may be an important determinant in decision of skin incision. For example, Mohler’s namesake modification sought to align the final closure less obliquely according to the more vertical orientation of the noncleft philtral column.


770e


way of presurgical infant orthopedics (or prelimi-nary labial adhesion), thus allowing for definitive cheiloplasty of both sides at the same time. Thus, symmetric cases of bilateral cleft lip (i.e., bilateral complete or bilateral incomplete cleft lip, with or without cleft alveolus and/or cleft palate) should proceed directly to definitive cheiloplasty after presurgical orthopedics, if warranted.

In the case of asymmetric bilateral cleft lip (e.g., complete with incomplete), a different strategy may be necessary. Because these cases do not begin with the symmetric foundation charac-teristic of bilateral complete or bilateral incom-plete cleft lip, performing definitive cheiloplasty directly and achieving a symmetric result is much more difficult. For this reason, preliminary labial or nasolabial adhesion may be performed to con-vert the complete side to incomplete. This creates

an intermediate stage of “bilateral incomplete cleft lip” before proceeding with the definitive cheiloplasty. (Note: It is important for the reader to understand the difference between “staging” the repair by performing a preliminary adhesion to establish symmetry and the traditional sense of staging repair of one side followed by repair of the other side, which destroys the symmetry that initially existed. The former is judicious and ben-eficial; the latter is ill-advised.) Adding the labial adhesion to the treatment protocol must always weigh the benefit of achieving symmetry against the risk and burden of an extra anesthetic event. Thus, the decision is case-specific and dependent on the degree of asymmetry.

In older presentations, the severely project-ing/rotated premaxilla would prevent establish-ment of muscular continuity during cheiloplasty.

Fig. 6. Mohler repair. The rotation incision initiates higher, within the colu-mella. The back-cut is then extended to the apex of the normal philtral col-umn. This allows for necessary rotation while creating a philtral column that originates at the lateral aspect of the cleft-side columella, coinciding with Mohler’s observations of more vertical normal philtral relationships. The C-flap again backs into the defect at the base of the columella, which augments the columella, but results in two three-point closures along the base of the nose.



771e

Therefore, the surgeon should first perform a premaxillary ostectomy and setback, which prop-erly positions the premaxilla for subsequent labial repair. Premaxillary setback can be safely com-bined with either palatoplasty or with labial adhe-sion and gingivoperiosteoplasty, which help to stabilize the premaxilla; a dental splint may also be used for additional protection and support.

It is important not to attempt cheiloplasty at the same time as the setback: The ostectomy disrupts the posterior blood supply such that the premax-illa is perfused only by the anterior blood supply from the columellar arteries. Consequently, eleva-tion of the philtral flap during cheiloplasty will result in premaxillary necrosis. Definitive cheilo-plasty should be deferred until 3 to 4 months after successful setback.

mulliken Technique for Bilateral cleft lip repair

Although several techniques for bilateral cleft lip repair have been described,1,17,18 we present the Mulliken technique below.15,16,19 It is important to note that asymmetric bilateral cleft lip involving microform or mini-microform defects on the lesser side is best treated according to alternate strate-gies, as described by Yuzuriha and colleagues and depicted in Figure 13.20,21

Markings for the operation are depicted in Figure 14 and should include the standard anthro-pometric landmarks: subnasale (sn), subalaris (sbal), labiale superius (ls), crista philtri superioris (cphs), and crista philtri inferioris (cphi). When taking measurements for symmetry, sn should serve as the main reference for prolabial markings and sbal for lateral lip markings. The vermilion/mucosal junction (“red line”) of the lip should be marked with a dotted line. On the prolabium, the philtral flap is designed. For the typical infant, this flap should be 2 mm wide superiorly (cphs–cphs),

Fig. 7. Many, if not most, children with unilateral complete clefts will ultimately go on to rhinoplasty in the teen years. The design for future open rhinoplasty with a transcolumellar incision is influenced by the original cleft closure; an additional scar across the columella may add to the overall visible scar burden when the original cleft repair traverses the columella. Rather than using a traditional transcolumellar incision, the original cleft scars may be used; however, this places the incision more inferi-orly than desirable.

Fig. 8. Compromise of the Noordhoff point. (Left) The Noordhoff point (point 8) will join the cleft side Cupid’s bow peak (point 3). Its ideal position is chosen as the medialmost point on the lateral lip at which the vermilion height is at its maximum, and the white roll is well defined. The selection of the Noordhoff point also inherently determines the transverse length of the lateral lip (7 to 8). (Right) The rotation incision (3 to 5) and the advancement incision (8 to 9) must be of equal lengths. In the event that the lateral lip is relatively short in the vertical dimension, this may require that the Noordhoff point be selected more laterally than its ideal position to ensure that 3 to 5 = 8′ to 9. When such compromise to the Noordhoff point is necessary, the transverse length of the lateral lip will be shortened (7 to 8′). All but minor inequalities in transverse lip length may present visible asymmetry as illustrated in Figure 10.


772e


4 mm wide inferiorly (cphi–cphi), and 6 to 7 mm in height (sn–ls), with sides drawn gently con-cave. These dimensions may be adjusted for the older child.16,22 Flanking flaps should be drawn 2 to 3 mm in width on each side. These flanking flaps, which will be deepithelialized, will improve the vascular supply of the philtral flap and may also simulate the philtral ridge. C-flaps are drawn on each side of the prolabium. On the lateral labial elements, the Noordhoff point is marked, although it may be slightly adjusted laterally sym-metrically to ensure 3 mm of white roll medial to this proposed location of the cphi points on each side. The cutaneous advancement flaps are drawn just above the white roll and up to sbal. Dilute anesthetic with epinephrine is infiltrated, key landmarks are tattooed, and markings are gently scored with a scalpel.

The operation begins with deepithelialization of the flanking flaps and elevation of the philtral flap en bloc with the flanking flaps. Any remain-ing prolabial skin and vermilion is discarded; the prolabial mucosa is preserved for later use. Pro-labial submucosa is excised with scissors. Next, the lateral labial flaps are incised at the superior

Fig. 9. In this case, a Millard II repair was performed. The vertical lengths of the philtral columns are nearly symmetric, and the Cupid’s bow is well balanced. The transverse lip lengths, how-ever, are markedly unequal. This case illustrates the importance of selecting the Noordhoff point at the most medial extent pos-sible to preserve transverse length, and also maintain vermilion height and white roll quality. It also illustrates the potential risk in compromising the Noordhoff point selection to accommo-date vertical discrepancies in rotation-advancement.

Fig. 10. Fisher anatomical subunit repair. The Fisher repair equalizes vertical lip lengths and balances the Cupid’s bow and it also (1) maintains the integrity of the lip-columella crease, (2) places no scar in or below the columella, (3) produces no scar around the ala, (4) eliminates three-point closures, and (5) allows the surgeon to designate and maintain the ideal position of the Noordhoff point regardless of the vertical height or transverse length of the lip. The difference in the heights of the noncleft and cleft philtral columns are determined. This dif-ference is reconciled with the additional height of a small inferior triangle (minus a corrective factor of 1 mm to accommodate additional length provided by slight rotation that occurs). Although it is not specifically included in the original design by Fisher, the author incorporates a curvature to the medial incision to mirror the natural slight curvature of the normal philtral column. This also adds a slight contribution to vertical length. Consequently, the surgeon must be careful not to exceed the calculated dimension of the inferior triangle at the risk of provid-ing more length than necessary.



773e

Fig. 11. Preoperative (left) and postoperative (right) images of a child with left unilateral complete cleft lip, alveolus, and Veau III palate, treated by the Fisher technique.

Video 1. Supplemental Digital Content 1, which displays cleft lip markings. This video is available in the “Related Videos” section of the full-text article on PRSJournal.com or at http://links.lww.com/PRS/C57.

Video 2. Supplemental Digital Content 2, which displays part 1 of the cleft lip repair operation. This video is available in the “Related Videos” section of the full-text article on PRSJournal.com or at http://links.lww.com/PRS/C58.






774e


aspect and the maxilla is exposed. The alar base is released sharply from the piriform rim. Sub-muscular (supraperiosteal) dissection is contin-ued laterally to the level of the malar eminences using a Tessier elevator to mobilize the cheek and decrease tension on the labial repair. The vermil-ion/mucosal flap is then divided from the cuta-neous portion of the lateral advancement flap. Orbicularis oris muscle is separated from overly-ing skin and underlying oral mucosa.

The mucosal flap is secured to the premaxillary periosteum at the anterior nasal spine, and gingi-voperiosteoplasty is performed. The mucosal flap creates the posterior wall of the new gingivolabial sulcus.23 Vestibular mucosa is approximated at this time, although closure of the cutaneous nasal sill

is deferred until later in the procedure. Next, lat-eral labial mucosa is closed, beginning laterally and marching toward the midline. In performing this step, it is critical to adequately advance the flaps medially with firm traction. As the mucosal flaps overlie the premaxilla, the free edge of the lateral labial mucosa will be sutured to the free edge of the mucosal flap, completing the creation of the gin-givolabial sulcus. Next, the orbicularis oris muscle is approximated in the midline and secured at its superior aspect to the anterior nasal spine.

The previously tattooed cphi points on each vermilion flap are again identified, and a new point 3 mm medial to cphi is marked on each flap. These two points are approximated to create the new ls, into which the point of the philtral flap will

Fig. 12. The vermilion height of the medial lip element is typically deficient. An uncorrected ver-milion deficiency is among the most common causes for minor lip revision, and it is completely avoidable. The Noordhoff triangular flap may be incorporated into the design of any unilateral cleft lip repair to equalize vermilion height. Because this tissue would otherwise be discarded, there is little rationale against its routine use.

Video 3. Supplemental Digital Content 3, which displays part 2 of the cleft lip repair operation. This video is available in the “Related Videos” section of the full-text article on PRSJournal.com or at http://links.lww.com/PRS/C59.





775e

later be inset. The paired vermilion flaps are con-toured as necessary to create the median tubercle.

The prolabial C-flaps are then approximated to the alar base flaps. Attention must be paid to creating symmetry in this step. A Prolene (Eth-icon, Inc., Somerville, N.J.) alar cinch suture may be placed to precisely control the alar base width; in infants, al–al is typically approximately 24 to 26 mm and should be smaller than en–en. “Myrtiform sutures” secured to the periosteum of the maxillae, just medial to each canine fossa, are then placed through the midpoint of each nasal sill to gently depress the nasal sill.

At this time, the surgeon should determine the method for nasal correction, as discussed in the subsequent section. Finally, following nasal correction, the lateral labial cutaneous advance-ment flaps are trimmed, as necessary, and the skin is closed.

SyncHronouS correcTion of clefT liP naSal deformiTy

The appearance of the cleft lip nasal deformity will worsen during the course of the cheiloplasty, as the nasal sill is created and as the alar base

Fig. 13. Algorithmic representation of strategies for repair of unilateral and bilateral cleft lip presenting in infancy. An important concept depicted in this image is that lesser-form and sometimes incomplete cleft lip may not require presurgical infant ortho-pedics or labial or nasolabial adhesion because a “natural adhesion” is already present. PSIO, presurgical infant orthopedics; RA/F uCLR, rotation-advancement or Fisher anatomical subunit approximation technique of unilateral cleft lip repair; LA, labial or naso-labial adhesion; GPP, gingivoperiosteoplasty; CLND, correction of cleft lip nasal deformity; bCLR, bilateral cleft lip repair. Solid lines represent common strategies; dotted lines represent other possible choices.


776e


width is narrowed. The authors consider synchro-nous correction of cleft lip nasal deformity at the time of labial repair to be an essential element for an optimal outcome. The goal of nasal correction at this stage should be to establish a good founda-tion for future growth, such that nasal revisions are not necessary until the time of definitive rhi-noplasty in young adulthood. All primary repair techniques focus on correction of the lower third of the nose. Later growth of the septum drives the development of the adult dorsal deformity and functional disturbances. Consequently, the notion

that primary correction of the lower third at the time of lip repair will limit the need for future septorhinoplasty is valid for only the most minor clefts.

The technique for nasal correction varies widely among cleft surgeons. One of the most common approaches was originally described by McComb and later modified by Salyer (Fig. 15).24–

29 In this approach, the ala is released from the piriform, the skin is elevated from the surface of the tip cartilages, and the lower lateral carti-lage is suspended superomedially by means of a

Fig. 14. Repair of bilateral complete cleft lip, as described by Mulliken. (Above, left) Marking of key landmarks and incision lines; (above, center) creation and elevation of the philtral flap with deepithelialized flanking flaps; (above, right) gingivoperiosteoplasty and closure of the nasal floor; (second row, left) premaxillary mucosal flap. (Second row, center) Muscular closure; (second row, right) labial approximation and creation of the median tubercle; and (below) completed repair, including bilateral alar rim incisions for placement of intercartilaginous and interdomal sutures.



777e

transcutaneous suture. Cutting describes a similar undermining of the lower lateral cartilages, but suspends superomedially by means of an intrana-sal mattress suture. Another technique popular-ized by Tajima incorporates a reverse-U incision at the soft triangle to allow for subcutaneous under-mining and suspension of the dome and lateral crus. Mulliken and Monson et al. have described methods of cartilaginous repositioning through alar rim incisions.1,16

Percutaneous and semiopen approaches are described below. Some surgeons prefer the percutaneous approach,30 whereas other sur-geons use the semiopen approach for moderate and severe cleft lip nasal deformity. It should be noted that many experienced surgeons also choose not to perform any correction of the nose at the time of lip repair. Any primary interven-tion must be weighed against deleterious effects

that it may have later in life relative to potential future rhinoplasty.2

Percutaneous TechniqueIn the authors’ center, children with a complete

cleft or those with incomplete clefts and significant nasal deformity are treated with presurgical ortho-pedic molding shortly after birth. The goal at the time of surgery, therefore, is to retain the corrected position of the lower lateral cartilage provided by nasoalveolar molding. In this technique, during the open labial incisions, scissors are used to mobi-lize the medial and lateral crura of the lower lateral cartilage (Fig. 15). Transmucosal sutures are placed to secure the lower lateral cartilage to the upper lateral cartilage (Fig. 16). If necessary, other trans-mucosal sutures may be placed medially to narrow the interdomal angle and laterally to improve the contour of the alar crease.

Fig. 15. Primary nasal correction using Salyer’s approach. From the margins of the pared cleft, the skin overlying the lower lateral cartilage is elevated medially between the medial crura over the dome and laterally over the lateral crus using dissecting scissors. The ala is released from its tethering connection at the piriform, and mattress sutures are placed transcutaneously to retain the desired position of the dome superomedially and to address the ubiquitous vestibular web. Dissection of the skin over the delicate alar cartilages of an infant must be meticulous to avoid damage to these structures. Even when the procedure is performed properly, scarring in the dis-section plane over the tip is an inevitable tradeoff in this approach.


778e


Semiopen approachIn the semiopen approach,16 bilateral alar rim

incisions are made just within the vestibule, with care taken to respect the skin of the soft triangles. Sharp and blunt dissection are used to carefully expose the lower lateral cartilage. The lower lateral cartilage is cleaned of fibrofatty tissue, especially medially. A cotton-tip applicator placed in the nasal vestibule can be used to simulate the shape of the genua, which assists in identification of the proper location for suture placement. Two inter-domal sutures (between the medial crura of each lower lateral cartilage) to decrease the interdomal angle and increase nasal tip projection. Two inter-cartilaginous sutures (between the superior bor-der of the lower lateral cartilage and the inferior border of the upper lateral cartilage) are placed to suspend the lower lateral cartilage and create the “scroll region.” Any redundant domal skin can be carefully excised (if needed) to improve the

contour of the alar rim. Any vestibular web is cor-rected by lenticular excision of mucosa.

It is important to note that the alar rim inci-sion leaves a scar; while usually imperceptible, the scar may be noticeable in some patients. Excessive skin excision may be deforming and may cause eversion of nasal hair. For this reason, the authors advise conservative—if any—skin excision.

PoSToPeraTive careIt is some surgeons’ practice to place tempo-

rary vented stents [Xeroform (Covidien, Mans-field, Mass.) wrapped around 19-gauge butterfly tubing] in each nostril for the immediate post-operative period. These are removed before dis-charge from the hospital. The intention of this is to improve nasal breathing by preventing bloody secretions from occluding the nostrils. Oth-ers have advocated prolonged nasal stenting to “mold” the nostril shape, but this recommenda-tion is debated.

Most patients spend one night in the hos-pital and are discharged after demonstrating sufficient oral intake. Before discharge, the parents must be trained in proper wound care. Any blood on the incision or in the nostrils should be carefully cleaned with half-strength hydrogen peroxide, and the incision line should be protected with a thin layer of anti-biotic ointment. Sutures are removed between 4 and 7 days postoperatively under mask anes-thesia. Skin glue or a Steri-Strip (3M, St. Paul, Minn.) may be applied to reinforce the wound closure.

Sunblock (sun protection factor ≥50) should be applied daily beginning at 1 month. If the scar begins to thicken (which may cause cicatricial elevation of the cphi point), the parents should be instructed how to perform scar massage three to five times daily for 5 minutes each time. If this occurs, the surgeon should follow the patient closely. In some cases, intralesional injection of tri-amcinolone (Kenalog; Bristol-Myers-Squibb, New York, N.Y.) may be beneficial. This may be repeated every 4 to 6 weeks up to three times. Scar massage should be continued by the parents even if steroids are used.

reviSionS and Secondary ProcedureS

It is the hope of all cleft surgeons that the initial surgery will be so effective that no further correc-tion will be necessary.

Fig. 16. Primary nasal correction with the author’s (J.R.M.) approach: The tethering attachment of the lateral crus at the piri-form is released. From this lateral approach, the dissection of the skin from the surface of the cleft lower lateral cartilage is limited to only the zone corresponding to the interface of the upper and lower lateral cartilage (i.e., the scroll). This is performed using blunt dissecting scissors. The cleft ala is elevated superomedi-ally with a retractor; intranasally, the scroll becomes imbricated by this maneuver. One or more mattress sutures are then placed intranasally to secure the imbrication of the scroll, thereby sus-pending the lower lateral cartilage in the desired position. Ves-tibular web and the contour of the alar crease are then addressed using one to three transcutaneous mattress sutures, exiting and reentering the skin at the same point, and tied intranasally.



779e

— D. Ralph Millard

The cleft lip repair is definitive; that is, it should be the only operation required for the cutaneous lip. Minor revisions to the volume of the vermilion (e.g., dermal autograft) may be safely performed during the same anesthetic ses-sion as alveolar bone grafting. Correction of the nasal deformity during the labial repair should establish a satisfactory foundation for future growth such that few—if any—corrections will be required before the time of definitive rhinoplasty in young adulthood.

Adolescent (pubertal) growth will almost invariably result in worsening of the cleft lip nasal deformity, but correction is deferred until the time of skeletal maturity. If orthogna-thic correction is required (e.g., for maxillary hypoplasia), this should be performed before rhinoplasty.

concluSionSRepair of unilateral and bilateral cleft lip, and

correction of the corresponding cleft lip nasal deformity, is a difficult undertaking. The plan of care and choice of operative technique are depen-dent on the specific cleft phenotype and age of presentation (Fig. 13). This article has presented several common contemporary methods in a “principles-based” fashion. Regardless of the par-ticular technique chosen for repair, the surgeon should be sure to understand and follow each of the foundational principles. The end goal is effective and efficient care in the safest manner possible.

Jeffrey R. Marcus, M.D.Division of Plastic, Maxillofacial, and Oral Surgery

Department of SurgeryDuke University Medical Center

DUMC 3974 Plastic Surgery200 Trent Drive at Erwin Road

Durham, N.C. [email protected]

referenceS 1. Monson LA, Kirschner RE, Losee JE. Primary repair

of cleft lip and nasal deformity. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132:1040e–1053e.

2. Fisher DM, Sommerlad BC. Cleft lip, cleft palate, and velopha-ryngeal insufficiency. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:342e–360e.

3. American Cleft Palate–Craniofacial Association. Parameters for Evaluation and Treatment of Patients with Cleft Lip/Palate or Other Craniofacial Anomalies. Chapel Hill, NC: American Cleft Palate–Craniofacial Association; 2009. Available at: http://www.acpa-cpf.org/uploads/site/Parameters_Rev_2009.pdf. Accessed December 13, 2015.

4. Grayson BH, Garfinkle JS. Early cleft management: the case for nasoalveolar molding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;145:134–142.

5. Hathaway RR, Long RE Jr. Early cleft management: In search of evidence. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;145:135–141.

6. van der Heijden P, Dijkstra PU, Stellingsma C, van der Laan BF, Korsten-Meijer AG, Goorhuis-Brouwer SM. Limited evidence for the effect of presurgical nasoalveolar mold-ing in unilateral cleft on nasal symmetry: A call for unified research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131:62e–71e.

7. Grayson BH. Discussion: Limited evidence for the effect of presurgical nasoalveolar molding in unilateral cleft on nasal symmetry: A call for unified research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131:75e–76e.

8. Kirschner RE, Adetayo OA, Losee JE. Lip adhesion. In: Losee JE, Kirschner RE, eds. Comprehensive Cleft Care. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, Fla: CRC Press; 2015:781–791.

9. Stal S, Brown RH, Higuera S, et al. Fifty years of the Millard rotation-advancement: Looking back and moving forward. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123:1364–1377.

10. Roussel LO, Myers RP, Girotto JA. The Millard rotation-advancement cleft lip repair: 50 years of modification. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2015;52:e188–e195.

11. Mohler LR. Unilateral cleft lip repair. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1987;80:511–517.

12. Cutting CB, Dayan JH. Lip height and lip width after extended Mohler unilateral cleft lip repair. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;111:17–23; discussion 24.

13. Fisher DM. Unilateral cleft lip repair: An anatomical subunit approximation technique. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;116:61–71.

14. Noordhoff MS. Reconstruction of vermilion in unilateral and bilateral cleft lips. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1984;73:52–61.

15. Allori AC, Marcus JR. Modern tenets for repair of bilateral cleft lip. Clin Plast Surg. 2014;41:179–188.

16. Mulliken JB. Repair of bilateral cleft lip. In: Neligan PC, Rodriguez ED, Losee JE, eds. Plastic Surgery. Vol. 3. Philadelphia: Saunders-Elsevier Health Sciences; 2012:343–360.

17. Chen PK, Noordhoff MS. Bilateral cleft lip and nose repair. In: Losee JE, Kirshner RE, eds. Comprehensive Cleft Care. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional; 2008:343–360.

18. Byrd HS, Ha RY, Khosla RK, Gosman AA. Bilateral cleft lip and nasal repair. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122:1181–1190.

19. Mulliken JB. Bilateral cleft lip. Clin Plast Surg. 2004;31:209–220.

20. Yuzuriha S, Mulliken JB. Minor-form, microform, and mini-microform cleft lip: Anatomical features, opera-tive techniques, and revisions. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122:1485–1493.

21. Yuzuriha S, Oh AK, Mulliken JB. Asymmetrical bilateral cleft lip: Complete or incomplete and contralateral lesser defect (minor-form, microform, or mini-microform). Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122:1494–1504.

22. Mulliken JB, Kim DC. Repair of bilateral incomplete cleft lip: Techniques and outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132:923–932.

23. Marcus JR, Fisher DM, Lenz GJ, Magee WP, Zuker RM. Inadequate gingivolabial sulcus remains an avoidable problem after bilateral cleft lip repair. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;115:220–225.

24. McComb H. Treatment of the unilateral cleft lip nose. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1975;55:596–601.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.acpa-cpf.org/uploads/site/Parameters_Rev_2009.pdf

http://www.acpa-cpf.org/uploads/site/Parameters_Rev_2009.pdf


780e


25. McComb H. Primary repair of the bilateral cleft lip nose. Br J Plast Surg. 1975;28:262–267.

26. Salyer KE. Primary correction of the unilateral cleft lip nose: A 15-year experience. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1986;77:558–568.

27. McComb HK, Coghlan BA. Primary repair of the unilateral cleft lip nose: Completion of a longitudinal study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1996;33:23–30; discussion 30.

28. McComb HK. Primary repair of the bilateral cleft lip nose: A long-term follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:1610–1615.

29. Salyer KE, Xu H, Genecov ER. Unilateral cleft lip and nose repair; closed approach Dallas protocol completed patients. J Craniofac Surg. 2009;20(Suppl 2):1939–1955.

30. Fisher MD, Fisher DM, Marcus JR. Correction of the cleft nasal deformity: From infancy to maturity. Clin Plast Surg. 2014;41:283–299.

Documents

Principles of Cleft Lip Repair: Conventions, …...cleft palate). Each deformity is presented in a “principles-based” manner. For unilateral cleft lip, the authors discuss common