Unilateral Cleft Lip Repair: A Quantitative Scale Assessment of Postoperative Lip and Nose Scars Across 2 Operative Techniques.

BACKGROUND

There is no quantitative evidence supporting one unilateral cleft lip (UCL) repair technique over the other with regard to scarring. We sought to evaluate the difference between the extended Mohler and Millard techniques, using 3 scar assessment scales.

METHODS

Postoperative frontal and basal photographs of patients undergoing UCL repair were reviewed. Three validated scar assessment scales were used: the Manchester Scar Scale (MSS), modified scar-rating scale (MSRS), and Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale. Lip and nose scars were rated by 5 independent raters using each of the scales. Interrater reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

RESULTS

Assessment of 116 images for 58 consecutive patients undergoing UCL repair (36 extended Mohler, 22 Millard) was performed. Interrater reliability was excellent for lip scars (ICCs, 0.903 [0.857-0.938] for MSS, 0.913 [0.872-0.944] for MSRS, and 0.850 [0.775-0.902] for SBES) and moderate for nose scar assessment (ICCs, 0.714 [0.579-0.816] for MSS, 0.693 [0.548-0.802] for MSRS, and 0.565 [0.359-0.720] for SBES). No statistically significant difference was found between the extended Mohler and Millard repairs in mean lip scar scores (MSS, 6.983 ± 1.469 vs 6.772 ± 1.175, P = 0.571; MSRS, 5.433 ± 1.530 vs 5.481 ± 1.290, P = 0.902; SBES, 3.633 ± 0.977 vs 3.446 ± 0.995, P = 0.483) or nose scar scores (MSS, 5.644 ± 1.131 vs 5.491 ± 0.689, P = 0.523; MSRS, 4.233 ± 0.987 vs 3.991 ± 0.705, P = 0.320; SBES, 3.933 ± 0.750 vs 4.018 ± 0.486, P = 0.603).

CONCLUSIONS

Using 3 validated scar assessment scales, no significant difference was found between the extended Mohler and Millard techniques in terms of lip or nose scars.