الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 9 |  |  |
| | | from | 9 | | |
Abstract
SUMMARY
M
any surgical protocols are available for the management of unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). Two-stage protocol (repair of cleft lip at 3-4 months old, followed by repair of cleft palate at the age of 10-18 months) is commonly practiced in cleft centers, including our hospital. One-stage simultaneous repair of both cleft lip and palate has been adopted in many cleft centers with satisfying result, the main advantage of this protocol is the theoretical lower costs and lower operative facilities consumption. The aim of this study was to compare two different surgical protocols in children who were operated on for unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP).
A randomized controlled trial was held on 32 consecutive patients, at Ain-Shams University Hospitals, with unoperated UCLP, allocated to two groups: group A, which consisted of 14 subjects consecutively treated with one-stage closure of the lip, hard and soft palate; and group B, which consisted of 18 subjects who underwent cleft lip repair and cleft hard palate repair with a vomer flap at first sitting. Then, repair of the remaining cleft soft palate was performed in a second sitting. The 2 study groups were evaluated as regards the duration of surgery, the need of intraoperative blood transfusion, post-operative complications in the form of respiratory distress, soft palate disruption and palatal fistula occurrence. Nasolabial aesthetics was qualitatively assessed by an experienced cleft surgeon (who was not a member of the operating team), 6 months after completing surgical correction of UCLP using 5-grade esthetic index described by Asher-McDade and colleagues in (1991).
Both groups were comparable as regards mean age at first operation (p=0.056), sex distribution (p=0.821), operating time (p=0.363), and need for postoperative intubation (p=0.568). There was no significant difference in prevalence of post-operative palatal fistula (p=1.000) and soft palate disruption (p=0.142) in both groups. The shape of vermilion border was comparable in both groups (p=0.832). The one-stage protocol subjects had significantly more favorable nasal form (p= 0.006) and less nasal deviation (p<0.001) compared with subjects of two-stage protocol. The subjects of two-stage protocol had significantly better nasal profile than one-stage subjects (p= 0.001). There was no inter-group difference for overall nasolabial esthetics score (p = 0.161).
Both one-stage and two-stage protocols showed comparable outcomes in prevalence of post-operative soft palate dehiscence, palatal fistula, and early overall nasolabial esthetics.