The Americleft Project: Comparison of Ratings Using Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Images for Evaluation of Nasolabial Appearance in Patients With Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate. Issue 1 (January 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jones, Christine M.; Roth, Benjamin; Mercado, Ana M.; Russell, Kathy A.; Daskalogiannakis, John; Samson, Thomas D.; Hathaway, Ronald R.; Smith, Andrea; Mackay, Donald R.; Long, Ross E.
• Is Part Of: Journal of craniofacial surgery. Volume 29:Issue 1(2018)
• Publication Date: 2018-01
• Subjects: 3-Dimensional images -- nasolabial esthetics -- nasolabial outcomes -- treatment outcome measures -- unilateral cleft lip and palate; Facial bones -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Skull -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Face -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; 617.52
• DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000004102
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1049-2275

Abstract

Abstract : Abstract: This study was conducted to determine if nasolabial appearance is rated with comparable results and reliability on 3-dimensional stereophotogrammetric facial images versus standard clinical photographs (2-dimensional). Twenty-seven consecutively treated patients with repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate were selected. Six trained and calibrated raters assessed cropped 2- and 3-dimensional facial images. Nasolabial profile, nasolabial frontal, and vermillion border esthetics were rated with the 5-point scale described by Asher-McDade using the modified Q-sort method. Cropped 3-dimensional images were available for viewing by each rater, allowing for complete rotational control for viewing the images from all aspects. Two- and three-dimensional ratings were done separately and repeated the next day. Interrater reliability scores were good for 2-dimensional (κ = 0.607–0.710) and fair to good for 3-dimensional imaging (κ = 0.374–0.769). Intrarater reliability was good to very good for 2-dimensional (κ = 0.749–0.836) and moderate to good for 3-dimensional imaging (κ = 0.554–0.855). Bland–Altman analysis showed satisfactory agreement of 2- and 3-dimensional scores for nasolabial profile and nasolabial frontal, but more systematic error occurred in the assessment of vermillion border. Although 3-dimensional images may be perceived as more representative of a direct clinical facial evaluation, their use for subjective rating of nasolabial aesthetics was not more reliable than 2-dimensional images in this study. Conventional 2-dimensional images provide acceptable reliability while being readily accessible for most cleft palate centers. Abstract : Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text