Abstract
Objective: Facial cleft involves complex malformations. No study assessed the facial deformity of Tessier No. 0 cleft with a bifid nose. Thus, we used anthropometric measurements to access the nose in patients.Methods: A total of 24 bifid nose deformities underwent surgery at our institution between 2010 and 2019. Standardized photographs were taken preoperatively and postoperatively. Landmarks were identified on these images; measurements for nasal analysis were performed and compared with the established Chinese norms. Surgical method differences were also analyzed.Results: The median follow-up time was 2.51 years. Postoperatively, there is a significant difference in comparison with preoperative in the nasal index, medial canthus and nose width index, nasolabial angle, nasofacial angle, ala length and nasal bridge length index, nasal tip protrusion and nasal width index, and nasal width and ala length index. Furthermore, the medial canthus and nose width index, and nasal width and ala length index were significantly larger in ordinary people, while ala length and nasal bridge length index and nasal tip protrusion and nasal width index were smaller. After surgery, most angles and index were standard except the nasolabial angle in the females, and ala length and nasal bridge length index in the males. Moreover, as for the group of costal cartilage transplantation, most index and angles have improved after surgery including nasolabial angle, nasofacial angle, ala length and nasal bridge length index, nasal tip protrusion and nasal width index, and nasal width and ala length index. However, only nasal tip protrusion and nasal width index, columella length and nasal tip protrusion index, and nasal width and ala length index in the silicone prosthesis group implantation has significance. Costal cartilage transplantation can also better improve ala length and nasal bridge length index than the silicone prosthesis implantation.Conclusion: Most defects can be repaired with surgery, but the outcome has a lack of evaluation. Thus, anthropometric assessment can serve as a material for nasal and reconstructive surgery.
Highlights
Craniofacial clefts, called facial clefts, are rare congenital malformations, usually involving multiple facial parts and aesthetic units
In 1976, Tessier classified the facial clefts based on his personal experience into a number from 0 to 14 [1]
Through the period between 2010 and 2019, a total of 24 patients, who were diagnosed with Tessier no. 0 cleft with bifid nose and received surgery in our hospital, were included in this retrospective study
Summary
Craniofacial clefts, called facial clefts, are rare congenital malformations, usually involving multiple facial parts and aesthetic units. In 1976, Tessier classified the facial clefts based on his personal experience into a number from 0 to 14 [1]. Facial cleft involving nasal subunits such as nasal dorsum, alar, tip, and columella is usually called a bifid nose, which is regarded as the most common craniofacial cleft and corresponds to no. 0 of the Tessier classification [2,3,4]. The patients may present a nasal dorsum that is collapsed, and the flat nasal tip is faintly grooved or deeply furrowed, or alar cartilages are split. The nose usually looks very short with or without orbital hypertelorism
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
