|| Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid
Both one- and two-stage approaches have been widely used for patients with asymmetric bilateral cleft lip. There are insufficient long-term outcome data for comparison of these two methods. The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the clinical outcome over the past 20 years.The senior author’s (L.J.L.) database was searched for patients with asymmetric bilateral cleft lip from 1995 to 2015. Qualified patients were divided into two groups: one-stage and two-stage. The postoperative photographs of patients were evaluated subjectively by surgical professionals and laypersons. Ratios of the nasolabial region were calculated for objective analysis. Finally, the revision procedures in the nasolabial area were reviewed. Statistical analyses were performed.A total of 95 consecutive patients were qualified for evaluation. Average follow-up was 13.1 years. A two-stage method was used in 35 percent of the patients, and a one-stage approach was used in 65 percent. All underwent primary nasal reconstruction. Among the satisfaction rating scores, the one-stage repair was rated significantly higher than two-stage reconstruction (p = 0.0001). Long-term outcomes of the two-stage patients and the unrepaired mini-microform deformities were unsatisfactory according to both professional and nonprofessional evaluators. The revision rate was higher in patients with a greater-side complete cleft lip and palate as compared with those without palatal involvement.The results suggested that one-stage repair provided better results with regard to achieving a more symmetric and smooth lip and nose after primary reconstruction. The revision rate was slightly higher in the two-stage patient group.Therapeutic, III.