Aim: The cleft lip and/or palate considers the second most common congenital anomaly (after club foot) accounting about 13 percent of all Congenital anomalies and the overall incidence is 1 in 1,000 live births. The ideal operation for the repair of a unilateral cleft lip would result in a symmetrical upper lip with the philtral column length on either side equal. The scar should mirror to the opposite side. There should also be no peaking at the Cupid’s bow at the cleft side or notching of the vermilion. Methods: Different methods have been described for repair of the cleft lip. The most popular method in primary unilateral cleft lip repair is Millard technique. Results: Modified Millard technique gave us good results in comparison with other techniques done by us despite these techniques achieved good results when they were done by their own. Evaluation by review of the patient charts, photographic analysis and patient-satisfaction questionnaire has revealed acceptable long term results. Conclusion: Many scoring systems have been proposed for evaluation of success of cleft lip repair. However, they are all lacking some aspects for evaluation. In our study, a system for evaluation was tried aiming to fulfill all parameters either subjective or objective.
El-Noamany, S., Sabet, A., & Enab, A. (2009). EVALUATION OF PRIMARY UNILATERAL CLEFT LIP REPAIR. A PROPOSED SCORING SYSTEM. The Egyptian Journal of Surgery, 28(4), 163-170. doi: 10.21608/ejsur.2009.367586
MLA
Sameh El-Noamany; Amr Sabet; Ashraf Enab. "EVALUATION OF PRIMARY UNILATERAL CLEFT LIP REPAIR. A PROPOSED SCORING SYSTEM", The Egyptian Journal of Surgery, 28, 4, 2009, 163-170. doi: 10.21608/ejsur.2009.367586
HARVARD
El-Noamany, S., Sabet, A., Enab, A. (2009). 'EVALUATION OF PRIMARY UNILATERAL CLEFT LIP REPAIR. A PROPOSED SCORING SYSTEM', The Egyptian Journal of Surgery, 28(4), pp. 163-170. doi: 10.21608/ejsur.2009.367586
VANCOUVER
El-Noamany, S., Sabet, A., Enab, A. EVALUATION OF PRIMARY UNILATERAL CLEFT LIP REPAIR. A PROPOSED SCORING SYSTEM. The Egyptian Journal of Surgery, 2009; 28(4): 163-170. doi: 10.21608/ejsur.2009.367586