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.
Cicatrix ; Cleft Lip ; Evaluation Studies as Topic ; Female ; Hospitals, Teaching ; Humans ; Lip ; Male ; Nose ; Prospective Studies ; Strikes, Employee ; Treatment Outcome

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.

Objectives: Despite treatment, the pre-traumatic facial appearance of patients with maxillofacial fractures might not be able to be restored, and this difference can affect the person’s quality of life (QoL). This study was designed to evaluate changes in QoL of people with maxillofacial fractures. Materials and Methods: The study population was comprised of participants with maxillofacial fracture and age- and sex-matched healthy controls without history of such fracture. QoL was measured using the World Health Organization Quality of Life BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) questionnaire, which was administered to the patients before treatment (Time 1), at 6 weeks post-treatment (Time 2), and at 12 weeks postoperatively (Time 3). The values were compared with those of healthy controls. The QoL was compared between closed reduction group and open reduction and internal fixation group. Results: The QoL scores of people with maxillofacial fracture before treatment were significantly lower (P=0.001) than those of healthy controls in all domains of the WHOQOL-BREF. The QoL scores in the psychological and social domains of patients with maxillofacial fracture at Time 3 were still lower than those of healthy controls (P=0.001). Conclusion The QoL of patients with maxillofacial fracture was significantly reduced before treatment in all domains and remained reduced in both psychological and social domains weeks after treatment. Therefore, clinicians must be aware of and manage the residual psychosocial issues that can accompany the post-treatment period of maxillofacial injury.