Early Two-Stage Palatoplasty Using Modified Furlow's Veloplasty

2010 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nishio Juntaro ◽  
Yamanishi Tadashi ◽  
Hiroshi Kohara ◽  
Yoshiko Hirano ◽  
Michiyo Sako ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Treatment Protocol ◽  
Dental Occlusion ◽  
Central Incisor ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Treatment Protocols ◽  
Normal Occlusion ◽  
New Treatment ◽  
Velopharyngeal Function

Objective To achieve sufficient velopharyngeal function and maxillary growth for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP), the authors have designed a new treatment protocol for palate closure involving early two-stage palatoplasty with modified Furlow veloplasty. Details of the surgical protocol and the outcomes of the dental occlusion of patients at 4 years of age are presented. Design and Setting This was an institutional retrospective study. Patients Seventy-two UCLP patients were divided into two groups based on their treatment protocols: patients treated using the early two-stage palatoplasty protocol (ETS group; n = 30) and patients treated using Wardill-Kilner push-back palatoplasty performed at 1 year of age (PB group; n = 42). Interventions The features of the ETS protocol are as follows: The soft palate is repaired at 12 months of age using a modified Furlow technique. The residual cleft in the hard palate is closed at 18 months of age. Lip repair is carried out at 3 months of age with a modified Millard technique for all subjects. Results The ETS group showed a significantly better occlusal condition than the PB group. The incidence of normal occlusion at the noncleft side central incisor was 7.1% in the PB group; whereas, it was 66.7% in the ETS group. Conclusion The results indicate that the early two-stage protocol is advantageous for UCLP children in attaining better dental occlusion at 4 years of age.

Treatment Outcome after Two-Stage Palatal Closure in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate: A Comparison with Eurocleft

2005 ◽  
Vol 42 (5) ◽  
pp. 512-516 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pieter J. P. M. Nollet ◽  
Christos Katsaros ◽  
Martin A. van't Hof ◽  
Gunvor Semb ◽  
William C. Shaw ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Outcome ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Treatment Protocol ◽  
Dental Arch ◽  
Treatment Results ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Treatment Protocols

Objective To evaluate dental arch relationships of patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) treated with a two-stage palatal closure and to compare them with the six centers from the Eurocleft study that used various treatment protocols. Design Repeated-measures study. Setting Cleft Palate Craniofacial Unit of Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Patients Records of 9-year-old children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (n = 43) were included. Interventions The dental arch relationships of these patients were assessed by applying the Goslon Yardstick and subsequently compared with the Goslon outcome of the six-center Eurocleft study. Mean Outcome Measures Statistics of intra- and interexaminer agreement. Results For the Nijmegen UCLP group, 9% of dental arch relationships had a Goslon score of 1, 52% had a score of 2, 30% has a score of 3, 9% had a score of 4, and none had a score of 5. The mean Nijmegen Goslon score showed no significant differences with Eurocleft centers A, B, and E, which achieved the best treatment results, but did significantly differ from Goslon outcomes of Eurocleft centers D (p < .001), C, and F (p < .01), which had relatively poor treatment outcome. Conclusions Treatment outcome of the patients in the Nijmegen UCLP group treated with two-stage palatal closure was comparable with the results of the Eurocleft centers with the best outcome. Treatment protocol could not explain differences in the quality of treatment results.

Speech and Hearing Outcomes of the Patients with Cleft Lip and Palate: Comparison between One-Stage Simultaneous and Two-Stage Surgical Repairs

2020 ◽  
Vol 103 (11) ◽  
pp. 1171-1177
Keyword(s):  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Common Belief ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Treatment Protocols ◽  
Palatal Fistula ◽  
One Stage ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Cleft Lip Palate ◽  
Palate Repair

Background: Conventional treatment for cleft lip and palate patients is lip repair at three to four months and then palatal repair at nine to 12 months of age. However, for the patients who delay seeing a doctor especially in a developing area such as Northern Thailand, simultaneous lip and palate repair is performed at 12 to 18 months of age or later, depending on the age at the first visit. It is a common belief that patients with cleft lip and palate will be behind non-cleft patients in early development phonemes because of the open palate. This delay persists until the palate is repaired and on into the postoperative period. This proposition has not been proven with long-term clinical outcomes in one-stage repairs. Objective: To investigate the effects of one-stage repair on speech assessment, hearing, and incidence of palatal fistula. The results were compared with conventional two-stage surgical repairs. Materials and Methods: The present study was designed two groups. Group 1 consisted of 25 children (mean age 11.28±1.93 years) treated with a one-stage repair. Cleft lip, palate, and alveolus were repaired at a single surgical session in the first 18 months of life (mean age at the time of surgery 13.52±4.51 months). Group 2 consisted of 17 children (mean age 11.02±2.23 years) treated in two-stage surgical repairs. Lip repair was performed at a median age of 4.01 months (IQR 3.62 to 5.46), and palate repair was performed at a mean age of 13.54±4.14 months. Both groups underwent cleft lip and palate repairs at the Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2010. Speech and hearing for all patients were evaluated by experienced ENT doctors. The palatal fistula was evaluated by the same plastic surgeons. Results: One-stage repair showed significant normal articulation and less articulation disorder when compared with two-stage surgical repairs. However, no significant difference was determined for other speech assessments, hearing, and incidence of palatal fistula. Conclusion: Because one-stage repair seems to have a more positive influence on articulation, and both surgical treatment protocols give similar results on speech assessments, hearing, and incidence of palatal fistula, regardless of the timing of the surgery, the one-stage repair is not inferior to conventional two-stage surgical repairs for patients in developing areas. This is due to several important advantages, such as less hospitalization, lower cost, and less chance of nosocomial infection. Keywords: One-stage repair, Speech, Hearing, Palatal fistula, Cleft lip, Palate

scholarly journals Maxillary Growth and Speech Outcome in Patient with Cleft Lip and Palate after Two-Stage Palate Repair: A Systematic Review

1970 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mulyadi Mulyadi ◽  
Prasetyanugraheni Kreshanti ◽  
Siti Handayani ◽  
Kristaninta Bangun
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
English Language ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Treatment Protocol ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Language Studies ◽  
Palate Repair ◽  
Maxillary Growth

Background: The management of patients with cleft lip and palate is complex, where the treatment outcome is judged on the balance between aesthetics, speech, and maxillary growth. Up to now, there is no generally accepted treatment protocol. Every center must find the best-suited protocol treatment for their population. Methods: A systematic review through literature search was conducted for English-language studies in PubMed. This search was conducted in September 2011 using EndNote X3 with keywords: Two-stage Palate Repair and Maxillary Growth and Two-stage Palate Repair and Speech Outcome. Both retrospective and prospective studies on maxillary growth and speech outcome in patient with cleft lip and palate after two-stage palate repair published from 2001 to 2012 were included. Result: From the reviewed of 37 articles, only 14 articles fit the inclusions criteria, three articles discussed the outcome of maxillary growth and speech outcome, eight articles only discussed the maxillary growth and the rest of articles only discussed the speech outcome. Conclusion:From this review we found that most of the two-stage palate repair results in better maxillary growth, but only few of them results in good speech outcome. We will perform further study based on this review to discover a new protocol for the management of palate repair in our center.

Changes in Airway Dimensions After Face-Mask Therapy in Cleft Lip and Palate and Non-cleft Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Erfan Bardideh ◽  
Maliheh Dadgarmoghaddam ◽  
Hooman Shafaee ◽  
Bahareh Mazloumhoseini
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Protocol ◽  
Face Mask ◽  
Treatment Protocols ◽  
Hand Search ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Airway Dimensions

Context: Maxillary deficiency can lead to the reduction of airway space and increase the chances of development of obstructive airway disorders. Facemask therapy is one of the main treatment protocols in developing maxillary deficient patients. Objectives: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the changes in the airway dimensions after face-mask therapy in both cleft lip and palate and non-cleft patients. Data Sources: A systematic search in different electronic databases (EMBASE, Pubmed, Cochrance Central register of controlled trials), IADR proceedings and a hand search by October 2020 were conducted and a meta-analysis and systematic review was performed. Results: In patients without cleft lip and palate, upper pharyngeal width was significantly increased by mean of 2.05mm (CI = 95%, 0.61 - 3.50) following facemask therapy in comparison to patients who did not receive the treatment.Other upper pharyngeal (nasopharyngeal) measurements also showed a statistically significant improvement after therapy: S-PNS by 4.64mm (CI = 95%, 3.34 - 5.94), AD1-PNS by 3.81 mm (CI = 95%, 2.40 - 5.21), AD2-PNS by 2.90 mm (CI = 95%, 0.13 - 5.67) and Pm’-SPL by 2.53 (CI = 95%, 0.54 - 4.51). Lower pharyngeal measurments did not show any significant changes after the treatment (P > 0.05).In the analysis of studies with 3D imaging modalities, upper pharyngeal volume was also significantly increased by 499.29mm3 (CI = 95%, 69.58-929.00) after the treatment. In addition, a review of articles that included cleft lip and palate patients also showed after the treatment, the upper pharyngeal measurements all showed a significant improvement (P < 0.05), whereas the oropharyngeal region was relatively stable. Conclusions: In maxillary deficient patients with or without an orofacial cleft, facemask therapy can improve the nasopharyngeal area dimensions; however, this treatment protocol appears not to have an effect on the oropharyngeal area of the airway tract.

Perceptual Speech Outcomes After Early Primary Palatal Repair in Ugandan Patients With Cleft Palate

2020 ◽  
pp. 105566562098024
Author(s):  
Kim Bettens ◽  
Laura Bruneel ◽  
Cassandra Alighieri ◽  
Daniel Sseremba ◽  
Duncan Musasizib ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cleft Palate ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Speech Therapy ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Control Group ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Early Primary ◽  
Velopharyngeal Function ◽  
Normal Speech

Objective: To provide speech outcomes of English-speaking Ugandan patients with a cleft palate with or without cleft lip (CP±L). Design: Prospective case–control study. Setting: Referral hospital for patients with cleft lip and palate in Uganda. Participants: Twenty-four English-speaking Ugandan children with a CP±L (15 boys, 9 girls, mean 8.4 years) who received palatal closure prior to 6 months of age and an age- and gender-matched control group of Ugandan children without cleft palate. Interventions: Comparison of speech outcomes of the patient and control group. Main Outcome Measures: Perceptual speech outcomes including articulation, resonance, speech understandability and acceptability, and velopharyngeal composite score (VPC-sum). Information regarding speech therapy, fistula rate, and secondary surgery. Results: Normal speech understandability was observed in 42% of the patients, and 38% were judged with normal speech acceptability. Only 16% showed compensatory articulation. Acceptable resonance was found in 71%, and 75% of the patients were judged perceptually to present with competent velopharyngeal function based on the VPC-sum. Additional speech intervention was recommended in 25% of the patients. Statistically significant differences for all these variables were still observed with the control children ( P < .05). Conclusions: Overall, acceptable speech outcomes were found after early primary palatal closure. Comparable or even better results were found in comparison with international benchmarks, especially regarding the presence of compensatory articulation. Whether this approach is transferable to Western countries is the subject for further research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document