Scandcleft Project Trial 3: Comparison of Speech Outcomes in Relation to Sequence in 2-Stage Palatal Repair Procedures in 5-Year-Olds With Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate

2020 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 352-363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Persson ◽  
Nina-Helen Pedersen ◽  
Christine Hayden ◽  
Melanie Bowden ◽  
Ragnhild Aukner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Soft Palate ◽  
Hard Palate ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Composite Measure ◽  
Connected Speech ◽  
Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Speech Characteristics ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Age Appropriate

Objective: To compare speech outcome following different sequencing of hard and soft palate closure between arms and centers within trial 3 and compare results to peers without cleft palate. Design: A prospective randomized clinical trial. Setting: Two Norwegian and 2 British centers. Participants: One hundred thirty-six 5-year-olds with unilateral cleft lip and palate were randomized to either lip and soft palate closure at 3 to 4 months and hard palate closure at 12 months (arm A) or lip and hard palate closure at 3 to 4 months and soft palate closure at 12 months (arm D). Main Outcome Measures: A composite measure of velopharyngeal competence (VPC), overall assessment of VPC from connected speech (VPC-Rate). Percentage of consonants correct (PCC), active cleft speech characteristics (CSCs), subdivided by oral retracted and nonoral errors, and developmental speech characteristics (DSCs). Results: Across the trial, 47% had VPC, with no statistically significant difference between arms within or across centers. Thirty-eight percent achieved a PCC score of >90%, with no difference between arms or centers. In one center, significantly more children in arm A produced ≥3 active CSCs ( P < .05). Across centers, there was a statistically significant difference in active CSCs (arm D), oral retracted CSCs (arm D), and DSCs (arms A and D). Conclusions: Less than half of the 5-year-olds achieved VPC and around one-third achieved age-appropriate PCC scores. Cleft speech characteristics were more common in arm A, but outcomes varied within and across centers. Thus, outcome of the same surgical method can vary substantially across centers.

scholarly journals Scandcleft Project Trial 2—Comparison of Speech Outcome in 1- and 2-Stage Palatal Closure in 5-Year-Olds With UCLP

2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 458-469
Author(s):  
Inger Lundeborg Hammarström ◽  
Jill Nyberg ◽  
Suvi Alaluusua ◽  
Jorma Rautio ◽  
Erik Neovius ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cleft Palate ◽  
Hard Palate ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Speech Therapy ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Burden Of Treatment ◽  
Hearing Thresholds ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Age Appropriate ◽  
Velopharyngeal Function

Objective: To investigate in-depth speech results in the Scandcleft Trial 2 with comparisons between surgical protocols and centers and with benchmarks from peers without cleft palate. Design: A prospective randomized clinical trial. Setting: Two Swedish and one Finnish Cleft Palate center. Participants: One hundred twelve participants were 5-years-old born with unilateral cleft lip and palate randomized to either lip repair and soft palate closure at 4 months and hard palate closure at 12 months or lip repair at 3 to 4 months (Arm A), or a closure of both the soft and hard palate at 12 months (Arm C). Main Outcome Measures: A composite measure dichotomized into velopharyngeal competency (VPC) or velopharyngeal incompetency (VPI), overall assessment of velopharyngeal function (VPC-Rate), percentage of consonants correct (PCC score), and consonant errors. In addition, number of speech therapy visits, average hearing thresholds, and secondary surgeries were documented to assess burden of treatment. Results: Across the trial, 53.5% demonstrated VPC and 46.5% VPI with no significant differences between arms or centers. In total, 27% reached age-appropriate PCC scores with no statistically significant difference between the arms. The Finnish center had significantly higher PCC scores, the Swedish centers had higher percentages of oral consonant errors. Number of speech therapy visits was significantly higher in the Finnish center. Conclusion: At age 5, poor speech outcomes with some differences between participating centers were seen but could not be attributed to surgical protocol. As one center had very few participants, the results from that center should be interpreted with caution.

Scandcleft Project, Trial 1: Comparison of Speech Outcome in Relation to Timing of Hard Palate Closure in 5-Year-Olds With UCLP

2019 ◽  
Vol 56 (10) ◽  
pp. 1276-1286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabeth Willadsen ◽  
Anette Lohmander ◽  
Christina Persson ◽  
Maria Boers ◽  
Mia Kisling-Møller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hard Palate ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Speech Therapy ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Reference Data ◽  
Burden Of Treatment ◽  
Speech Characteristics ◽  
Velopharyngeal Incompetence ◽  
Hearing Thresholds ◽  
Age Appropriate

Objective: To compare in-depth speech results in Scandcleft Trial 1 as well as reference data from peers without cleft palate (CP). Design: A prospective randomized clinical trial. Setting: A Danish and a Swedish CP center. Participants: 143 of 148 randomized 5-year-olds with unilateral cleft lip and palate. All received lip and velum closure at 4 months, and hard palate closure at 12 months (arm A) or 36 months (arm B). Main Outcome Measures: A composite measure based on velopharyngeal competence (VPC) or velopharyngeal incompetence (VPI), an overall assessment of VPC from connected speech (VPC-Rate), Percentage of Consonants Correct (PCC-score), and consonant errors. Speech therapy visits, average hearing thresholds, and secondary pharyngeal surgeries documented burden of treatment. Results: Across the trial, 61.5% demonstrated VPC and 38.5% VPI. Twenty-two percent of participants achieved age appropriate PCC-scores. There were no statistically significant differences between arms or centers for these measures. In the Danish center, arm B: achieved lower PCC-scores ( P = .01); obtained PCC-scores without s-errors below 79% ( P = .002); produced ≥3 active oral cleft speech characteristics ( P = .004) than arm A. In both centers, arm B attended more speech visits. Conclusions: At age 5, differences between centers and treatment arms were not statistically significant for VPC/VPI, but consonant proficiency differed between treatment arms in the Danish center. Poor speech outcomes were seen for both treatment arms. Variations between centers were observed. As the Swedish center had few participants, intercenter comparisons should be interpreted with caution.

Influence of Infant Cleft Dimensions on Velopharyngeal Function in 5-Year-Old Danish Children Born With Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate

2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 420-429
Author(s):  
Susanna Botticelli ◽  
Annelise Küseler ◽  
Kirsten Mølsted ◽  
Helene Soegaard Andersen ◽  
Maria Boers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Soft Palate ◽  
Hard Palate ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Velopharyngeal Insufficiency ◽  
Primary Surgery ◽  
Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Palate Repair ◽  
Velopharyngeal Function

Aim: To examine the association of cleft severity at infancy and velopharyngeal competence in preschool children with unilateral cleft lip and palate operated with early or delayed hard palate repair. Design: Subgroup analysis within a multicenter randomized controlled trial of primary surgery (Scandcleft). Setting: Tertiary health care. One surgical center. Patients and Methods: One hundred twenty-five infants received cheilo-rhinoplasty and soft palate repair at age 3 to 4 months and were randomized to hard palate closure at age 12 or 36 months. Cleft size and cleft morphology were measured 3 dimensionally on digital models, obtained by laser surface scanning of preoperative plaster models (mean age: 1.8 months). Main outcome measurements: Velopharyngeal competence (VPC) and hypernasality assessed from a naming test (VPC-Sum) and connected speech (VPC-Rate). In both scales, higher scores indicated a more severe velopharyngeal insufficiency. Results: No difference between surgical groups was shown. A low positive correlation was found between posterior cleft width and VPC-Rate (Spearman = .23; P = .025). The role of the covariate “cleft size at tuberosity level” was confirmed in an ordinal logistic regression model (odds ratio [OR] = 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.01-1.35). A low negative correlation was shown between anteroposterior palatal length and VPC-Sum (Spearman = −.27; P = .004) and confirmed by the pooled scores VPC-Pooled (OR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.69-0.98) and VPC-Dichotomic (OR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.68-0.99). Conclusions: Posterior cleft dimensions can be a modest indicator for the prognosis of velopharyngeal function at age 5 years, when the soft palate is closed first, independently on the timing of hard palate repair. Antero-posterior palatal length seems to protect from velopharyngeal insufficiency and hypernasality. However, the association found was significant but low.

Do Infant Cleft Dimensions Have an Influence on Occlusal Relations? A Subgroup Analysis Within an RCT of Primary Surgery in Patients With Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate

2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 378-388
Author(s):  
Susanna Botticelli ◽  
Annelise Küseler ◽  
Agneta Marcusson ◽  
Kirsten Mølsted ◽  
Sven E. Nørholt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Soft Palate ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Hard Palate ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
3D Analysis ◽  
Primary Surgery ◽  
Size And Morphology ◽  
Crude Analysis ◽  
Closure Group

Aim: To investigate whether infant cleft dimensions, in a surgical protocol with early or delayed hard palate closure, influence occlusion before orthodontics. Design: Subgroup analysis within a randomized trial of primary surgery (Scandcleft). Setting: Tertiary health care. One surgical centre. Patients and Methods: A total of 122 unilateral cleft lip and palate infants received primary cheilo-rhinoplasty and soft palate closure at age 4 months and were randomized for hard palate closure at age 12 versus 36 months. A novel 3D analysis of cleft size and morphology was performed on digitized presurgical models. Occlusion was scored on 8-year models using the modified Huddarth–Bodenham (MHB) Index and the Goslon Yardstick. Main Outcome Measurements: Differences in MHB and Goslon scores among the 2 surgical groups adjusted for cleft size. Results: The crude analysis showed no difference between the 2 surgical groups in Goslon scores but a better MHB ( P = .006) for the group who received delayed hard palate closure. When adjusting for the ratio between cleft surface and palatal surface (3D Infant Cleft Severity Ratio) and for posterior cleft dimensions at tuberosity level, the delayed hard palate closure group received 3.65 points better for MHB (confidence interval: 1.81; 5.48; P < .001) and showed a trend for reduced risk of receiving a Goslon of 4 or 5 ( P = .052). For posterior clefts larger than 9 mm, the Goslon score was better in the delayed hard palate closure group ( P = .033). Conclusions: Seen from an orthodontic perspective, when the soft palate is closed first, and the cleft is large, the timing of hard palate closure should be planned in relation to posterior cleft size.

Influence of Early Hard Palate Closure in Unilateral and Bilateral Cleft Lip and Palate on Maxillary Transverse Growth during the First Four Years of Age

2003 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 126-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernhard Lehner ◽  
Joerg Wiltfang ◽  
Karin Strobel-Schwarthoff ◽  
Michaela Benz ◽  
Ursula Hirschfelder ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hard Palate ◽  
Primary Closure ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Arch Width ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Early Primary ◽  
Delayed Closure ◽  
The University

Objective To evaluate and compare the effects of early primary closure of the hard palate on the anterior and posterior width of the maxillary arch in children with bilateral (BCLP) and unilateral (UCLP) cleft lip and palate during the first 4 years of life. Design A retrospective, mixed-longitudinal study. Setting Cleft Palate Center of the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg. Subjects and Methods The present investigation analyzes longitudinally 42 children with UCLP and 8 children with BCLP between 1996 and 2000 with early simultaneous primary closure of lip and hard palate (4 to 5 months). Palatal arch width was measured on dental casts with a computer-controlled three-dimensional digitizing system, and their growth velocities were calculated from consecutive periods (mean follow-up 39 months). Differences in growth velocities were compared with those of 25 children with UCLP and 15 children with BCLP with delayed closure of hard palate (12 to 14 months). Results and Conclusions There was no significant difference in terms of anterior and posterior maxillary width between early and delayed closure of hard palate within the first 4 years of life.

Gingivoperiosteoplasty and Midfacial Growth

1997 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. Wood ◽  
Barry H. Grayson ◽  
Court B. Cutting
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Hard Palate ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
New York University ◽  
Lateral Cephalogram ◽  
Primary Surgery ◽  
Lateral Cephalograms ◽  
Significant Difference

The objective of this study was to report the effect of gingivoperiosteoplasty on growth of the midfacial skeleton 6 years following primary surgical repair. Patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate who underwent primary cleft lip and nose repair with and without gingivoperiosteoplasty (GPP) were retrospectively compared by means of a lateral cephalogram. Mean age at the time of evaluation was 5.7 years. All patients were treated at the Institute of Reconstructive Plastic Surgery, New York University Medical Center. All surgery and presurgical orthopedics was performed by the same surgeon and the same orthodontist. Twenty-five consecutively treated patients who presented with complete unilateral clefts of the primary and secondary palate were included in the study. Of these, 20 patients were available for 6-year follow-up cephalometric documentation and review. All patients received preoperative orthopedics with passive molding appliances, followed by repair of the lip, alveolus, and nose in a single stage at the age of 3 months. The repair was performed using the rotation/advancement technique. The difference between the two groups was whether or not gingivoperiosteoplasty was performed. The reason for not performing gingivoperiosteoplasty was incomplete approximation of the alveolar segments usually due to a late start in beginning therapy. Lateral cephalograms (68.5 months post primary surgery) were obtained and traced. Cranial base (S–N), maxilla (ANS–PNS), and mandible (Go–Pg) were digitized for shape coordinate analysis. No significant difference in the mean position of ANS–PNS was found between groups (with or without gingivoperiosteoplasty). There was, however, a significant difference In the variance of position for the points ANS–PNS between the groups (p<.002). We were unable to observe any difference (anteroposterior or supero-inferior) in the average position of the hard palate (ANS–PNS) between groups. We conclude that gingivoperiosteoplasty results in a more uniform position of the hard palate (ANS–PNS) relative to patients that did not receive gingivoperiosteoplasty. We were unable to demonstrate any clear impairment of maxillary growth in the patients treated with gingivoperiosteoplasty when compared to patients treated without gingivoperiosteoplasty.

scholarly journals A RARE CASE OF CONGENITAL PALATAL FISTULA WITH NORMAL SOFT PALATE AND UVULA

2020 ◽  
pp. 42-43
Author(s):  
Sushrut Tated ◽  
Arshad Hafeez Khan ◽  
Asif Iqbal Shaikh
Keyword(s):  
Congenital Anomaly ◽  
Soft Palate ◽  
Rare Case ◽  
Hard Palate ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Posterior Edge ◽  
Palatal Fistula ◽  
Incisive Foramen ◽  
Nasal Regurgitation

Cleft lip and palate are commonly observed congenital anomaly. But congenital palatal stula is very uncommon. Only few cases have been reported in literature globally. Irrespective of the doubts in etiology and pathogenesis, due to its rarity it is important to report these rare cases in the literature as and when it comes to the notice of the clinicians. Herein,we present a case of two-year-old child presented to us with isolated congenital palatal stula. Apart from nasal regurgitation on feeding and URTI, all other things were normal. Midline, rectangular stula of 2 cm x 1.5 cm extending from incisive foramen and involving posterior edge of hard palate was seen. Patient responded well to the surgery and postoperative period was uneventful.

scholarly journals Simultaneous Repair of Cleft Hard Palate by Vomer Flap along with Cleft Lip in Unilateral Complete Cleft Lip and Palate Patients

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kazi Md. Noor-ul Ferdous ◽  
M. Saif Ullah ◽  
M. Shajahan ◽  
M. Ashrarur Rahman Mitul ◽  
M. Kabirul Islam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Transfusion ◽  
Soft Palate ◽  
Hard Palate ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Fistula Formation ◽  
Posterior Border ◽  
Oronasal Fistula ◽  
Vomer Flap

The purpose of the study was to see the short-term outcome of simultaneous repair of cleft lip and cleft hard palate with vomer flap against cleft lip repair alone in patients with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate (UCLP). A prospective observational study was carried out in 35 patients with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate who under-went cleft lip and cleft hard palate repair with vomer flaps simultaneously. After 3 months, cleft soft palate was repaired. During 1st and 2nd operations, the gap between cleft alveolus and posterior border of the cleft hard palate was measured. Postoperative complications, requirement of blood transfusion during the operation, and duration of operations were also recorded. Simultaneous repairs of cleft lip and closure of cleft hard palate with vomer flaps are easy to perform and are very effective for the repair of cleft lip and palate in UCLP patients. No blood transfusion was needed. Gaps of alveolar cleft and at the posterior border of hard palate were reduced remarkably, which made the closure of the soft palate easier, decreased operation time, and also decreased the chance of oronasal fistula formation.

One- or Two-Stage Palate Closure in Patients with Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate: Comparing Cephalometric and Occlusal Outcomes

2007 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silke Stein ◽  
Anton Dunsche ◽  
Nils-Claudius Gellrich ◽  
Franz Härle ◽  
Irmtrud Jonas
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Treatment ◽  
Soft Palate ◽  
Hard Palate ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Facial Growth ◽  
Arch Width ◽  
One Stage ◽  
Lateral Cephalograms ◽  
Cast Analysis

Objective: To assess facial growth and dentoalveolar development in two groups of patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Primary surgical treatment differed in the timing of hard palate closure. Design: Forty-three patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate were examined. Twenty-two patients underwent early one-stage closure of the hard and soft palate cleft (mean age 23.0 ± 4.7 months); in 21 patients, the hard palate closure was delayed to 86.3 ± 39.2 months of age. Lateral cephalograms and dental casts were consecutively analyzed at four stages between 6 and 18 years of age. Results: Lateral cephalometric analysis revealed no significant intergroup differences in the sagittal and vertical craniofacial dimensions at any time. Dental cast analysis showed constriction of the upper anterior arch width at the ages of 6 and 10 years in patients with one-stage surgical palate closure, but a difference could no longer be verified at the ages of 15 and 18 years. Conclusions: The transverse distances in the upper jaw developed initially more positively in the group with delayed hard palate closure, but it became apparent later that the transverse deficiency after one-stage palate closure could be compensated for. When considering surgical treatment in general, the advantages of the delayed hard palate closure must be weighed against criteria favoring the early one-stage closure of the hard and soft palate.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document