{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0157251019219569, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004659289458357601, 'mean_word_length': 5.247272727272727, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Outcomes of Closed Versus Open Technique of Rhinoplasty During Primary Repair of Unilateral Cleft Lip: A Systematic Review

Objective: Primary cleft rhinoplasty has almost become the norm in cleft practice. Although various closed and open rhinoplasty techniques are in use, there is no consensus as to which technique is superior in terms of outcome. The authors hypothesized that the long-term outcomes of open rhinoplasty during primary cleft lip repair in unilateral cleft is better than that of the closed method. This systematic review has been done to evaluate the hypothesis by a review and analysis of literature. Methods: Protocol was registered on the PROSPERO register of systematic reviews. PRISMA-P guidelines for the conduct of systematic review were followed. Literature search was done in various databases. The inclusion criteria were patients with nonsyndromic unilateral cleft lip undergoing rhinoplasty with primary cleft lip repair and preference given to studies comparing the 2 procedures. Results: Sixteen articles were selected based on inclusion criteria after screening 522 articles—1 randomized controlled trial, 2 retrospective cohorts, and 13 case series. Both closed and open techniques have achieved good symmetry of nostrils with no impairment of growth. No advantage of one technique over the other was noted. Conclusions: There is a paucity of randomized controlled trials and prospective studies on the subject to arrive at an evidence-based recommendation as to whether open or closed rhinoplasty during primary cleft lip repair gives better long-term outcomes. Due to insufficient evidence, the authors are not able to support or refute the hypothesis put forward in the review.