Trial reportAfrican journal of paediatric surgery : AJPS2024
The Outcomes of Modified Millard Technique Versus Tennison-Randall Technique in Unilateral Cleft Lip Repair: A Comparative Trial.
Trial report in African journal of paediatric surgery : AJPS, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to use anthropometric measurements taken pre- and post-operation to evaluate quantitative assessment of modified Millard technique compared with Tennison-Randall technique in unilateral cleft lip (UCL) repair. MATERIALS AND
methodsProspective randomised controlled study recruited infants scheduled for UCL repair. Infants aged 2-6 months, either complete or incomplete deformity. A total of 68 patients were randomised in 1:1 ratio to undergo either modified Millard technique (Group I) or Tennison-Randall technique (Group II).
resultsGroup I had significantly longer operative time than Group II (85.7 ± 7.4 vs. 68.7 ± 8.8 min, respectively; P < 0.001). Group I has less post-operative wound infection, wound dehiscence and wound scarring than Group II, but Group II has less post-operative lip notch. In Group I, greater increases in post-operative horizontal lip length and vertical lip height were observed, compared to Group II, without statistically significant difference. Group I showed a greater reduction in nasal width and total nasal width than Group II, without statistically significance. Group II had a greater increase in philtral height. However, only post-operative Cupid's-bow width was significantly different between two groups (P = 0.041).
conclusionOverall results demonstrate no significant differences between modified Millard technique and Tennison-Randall technique.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.