[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: In the era of evidence-based medicine, new treatment protocols and interventions should be routinely evaluated for their efficacy by reviewing the available evidence. In the cleft literature, nasoalveolar molding has garnered attention over the last decade as a new option for improving nasal form and symmetry before primary surgical repair. Systematic review of the evidence is, however, currently lacking. This review evaluates whether nasoalveolar molding can improve nasal symmetry and form toward the norm, as well as whether nasoalveolar molding demonstrates advantages over other protocols in achieving this goal. A literature search of five databases plus relevant reference lists retrieved 98 articles regarding nasoalveolar molding, 21 of which reported objective outcome measures of nasal symmetry and form, and six of which were able to be given evidence level ratings, all in the unilateral cleft population. Statistical analysis was not possible given the range of techniques and outcomes. Studies of bilateral cleft were not given evidence level ratings, given the inability to separate the effects of nasoalveolar molding from other primary nasal interventions in studies that would have otherwise been rated. In unilateral cleft lip-cleft palate, there was some evidence that nasoalveolar molding may improve nasal outcomes, though comparison with other techniques was limited. Despite a relative paucity of high-level evidence, nasoalveolar molding appears to be a promising technique that deserves further study.
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 09/2012; 130(3):659-66. DOI:10.1097/PRS.0b013e31825dc10a · 3.33 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This study was the result of a constant evaluation of surgical techniques and results to obtain excellence in primary cleft rhinoplasty.
This was a retrospective study from 1992 to 2003 comparing the long-term outcomes of four techniques of nasal reconstruction. There were 76 patients divided into four groups: group I (n = 23 patients), primary rhinoplasty alone; group II (n = 16 patients), nasoalveolar molding alone; group III (n = 14 patients), nasoalveolar molding plus primary rhinoplasty; and group IV (n = 23 patients), nasoalveolar molding plus primary rhinoplasty plus overcorrection. The surgical results were analyzed using photographic records obtained at 5 years of age. A ratio of six measurements was obtained comparing the cleft and noncleft sides. A panel assessment was obtained to grade the appearance of the surgical results. All surgery was performed by the senior author (P.K.T.C.).
The results are given for groups I to IV, respectively. The nostril height ratio was 0.73, 0.77, 0.81, and 0.95. The nostril width ratio was 1.23, 1.36, 1.23, and 1.21. The one-fourth medial part of nostril height ratio was 0.70, 0.87, 0.92, and 1.00. The nasal sill height ratio was 0.75, 1.02, 1.07, and 1.07. The nostril area ratio was 0.86, 0.89, 0.95, and 1.08. The nostril height-to-width ratio was 0.58, 0.58, 0.71, and 0.92. Finally, group IV had the best panel assessment.
The results revealed that group IV had the best overall result. Overcorrection of 20 percent was necessary to maintain the nostril height. Further technical modifications are necessary to minimize widening of the nostril width.
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 10/2010; 126(4):1276-84. DOI:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181ec21e4 · 3.33 Impact Factor
Note: Although carefully collected, accuracy of this list of references cannot be guaranteed.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.