Article

Is Nasal Mucoperiosteal Closure Necessary in Cleft Palate Repair?

Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (Impact Factor: 3.33). 02/2011; 127(2):768-73. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181fed80a
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The goals of successful palate repair include optimizing speech and feeding, mitigating adverse maxillary growth effect, and avoiding fistulae. The necessity of vomerine and/or nasal-side mucosa repair has not been tested. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of palate repairs with and without nasal mucoperiosteal closure. The authors used the null hypothesis.
This was a retrospective analysis of consecutive cleft palate repairs performed between 2001 and 2004. Group 1 underwent two-layer repair (oral and nasal/vomerine mucoperiosteal flaps), and group 2 underwent one-layer closure (oral mucoperiosteal flaps) only. Both groups underwent double-opposing Z-plasty posteriorly. Demographic and perioperative outcome variables were recorded and compared statistically.
Group 1 consisted of 51 children (23 boys and 28 girls), and 80 percent were nonsyndromic. Group 2 included 29 patients (15 boys and 14 girls), and 72 percent were without an associated diagnosis. Age at repair was similar (20.80 and 15.17 months, respectively). Operative time was less for one-layer repair (84 versus 135 minutes) (p = 0.0001). Complications, length of stay, and follow-up length were similar between the two cohorts. Velopharyngeal dysfunction was rare in both groups. A single fistula occurred in each group. Anthropometric data revealed larger maxillary arc and tragus-subnasale lengths in group 2. Growth velocities were similar in both groups.
The goals of cleft palate repair can be efficiently achieved using a one-sided oral mucoperiosteal repair only. Omitting the nasal-side and vomer repair does not increase fistula formation or prove detrimental to velopharyngeal function, and may facilitate maxillary growth.

0 Followers
 · 
62 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Development of normal speech is the primary goal of successful palatoplasty. The purpose of this study was to determine the importance of the contribution of vomer flap to palatoplasty procedure for speech function. Eighty-one children who underwent 2 flap palatoplasty procedures for cleft palate repair between 2002 and 2010 were retrospectively reviewed in 3 groups. Group 1 underwent palatoplasty without contribution of vomer flap. Group 2 underwent palatoplasty with standard dissection of vomer flap, whereas group 3 underwent palatoplasty with extended dissection of vomer flap. Speech function of the patients was evaluated using objective assessment tools such as nasopharyngoscopy and nasometer. Eighty-one children who underwent 2 flap palatoplasty were included in this study. The mean age at palatoplasty was 10.17 months, and mean length of follow-up was 72.33 months. For most syllables, patients repaired using extended vomer flap demonstrated lower nasalance scores. Nasopharyngoscopic examination revealed velopharyngeal motility in 24 patients (80%) in group 1 and in 20 (83.3%) and 23 (85.2%) patients in groups 2 and 3, respectively (P = 0.930). In velopharyngeal closure, there were only 5 patients (18.5%) in group 3, whereas there were 6 patients (25.0%) for group 2 and 10 patients (33.3%) for group 1 with no closure (P = 0.311). Although most optimum results were observed in the group with extended dissection of the vomer flap, contribution of the extended vomer flap to the repair of the soft palate did not lead to significantly better speech results.
    Journal of Craniofacial Surgery 11/2014; 25(6):1980-4. DOI:10.1097/SCS.0000000000001030 · 0.68 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Learning Objectives: After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Describe the technical details common to all cleft palate repairs that optimize outcomes and minimize complications. 2. Explain the subjective and objective evaluation of speech in children with cleft palate. 3. Practice with an increased awareness of the management of complications associated with cleft palate repair. 4. Design a treatment plan for velopharyngeal dysfunction. Summary: Goals of a successful cleft palate repair include separation of the oral and nasal components without fistula, achieving sufficient velar length, and creating functional transverse orientation of the levator muscle sling. A number of techniques have been described to achieve these goals, but they all have the following technical details in common: elevation of oral mucosal flaps based on the greater palatine arteries, tension free nasal lining mobilization, and functional intervelar muscle dissection. After palate repair, speech evaluation needs to be performed by an objective interdisciplinary team following a standardized protocol. Identification of velopharyngeal insufficiency secondary to an incompetent nasopharyngeal port will necessitate secondary speech surgery. These secondary techniques include pharyngeal flaps, soft palate lengthening, or pharyngeal sphincters, which should be tailored to optimize speech, while minimizing the risk of obstructive sleep apnea.
    Plastic &amp Reconstructive Surgery 06/2014; 133(6):852e-64e. DOI:10.1097/PRS.0000000000000184 · 3.33 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The authors begin with a discussion of the anatomy relevant to palatoplasty. Perioperative considerations are then addressed. A broad range of surgical options has evolved over time; these are discussed in their historical context. The authors present a detailed description of their preferred surgical approach. Postoperative care is then described. An examination of recent trends and controversies in the field is then offered. Finally, an approach to outcomes assessment is discussed. It is hoped that this monograph will be of use in guiding others as they embark on the highly challenging, but equally rewarding, task of perfecting the palatoplasty.
    Clinics in plastic surgery 04/2014; 41(2):189-210. DOI:10.1016/j.cps.2013.12.005 · 1.35 Impact Factor