The State of the Art in Cleft Palate Surgery

2000 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 225-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Don Larossa
Keyword(s):  
Cleft Palate ◽  
Soft Palate ◽  
Hard Palate ◽  
Surgical Repair ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Current Understanding ◽  
Multiple Methods ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Palate Repair

Overview This update focuses on current practices and controversies in surgical repair of the hard and soft palate posterior to the alveolus. Our current understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of presurgical active and passive manipulation of the hard palate shelves including the use of periosteoplasty is reviewed. The evolution of the multiple methods of repair of the hard and soft palate is given in a historical context along with a discussion of the concerns about timing of palate repair.

Musculature of the Soft Palate: Clinico-anatomic Correlations and Therapeutic Implications in the Treatment of Cleft Palates

1997 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 189-194
Author(s):  
Christian Vacher ◽  
Bernard Pavy ◽  
Jeffrey Ascherman
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Technique ◽  
Cleft Palate ◽  
Nasal Mucosa ◽  
Soft Palate ◽  
Hard Palate ◽  
Surgical Repair ◽  
Posterior Border ◽  
Therapeutic Implications ◽  
Sagittal Orientation

Objective Hypoptasia of the maxilla, often described as a classic sequela to surgical repair of the cleft palate, has been rare In our experience. We believe that our surgical technique, which includes dividing the nasal mucosa and the abnormal muscular insertions at the posterior border of the hard palate, is an important factor in preventing this sequela. Method We compared the anatomy of 12 normal palates in cadavers to the anatomy of cleft palates seen at operation and to the anatomy of one cleft palate in a fetus aged 34 weeks. Results In cleft palates, the muscular fibers have an abnormal sagittal orientation, inserting on the posterior border of the hard palate. Conclusion The division of both the nasal mucosa and these abnormal muscular insertions at the posterior border of the hard palate enables the surgeon to eliminate the abnormal posterior pull of these fibers on the maxilla.

On the Frequency of Oronasal Fistulation After Primary Cleft Palate Repair

2019 ◽  
Vol 56 (10) ◽  
pp. 1302-1313
Author(s):  
Ana Tache ◽  
Maurice Y. Mommaerts
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cleft Palate ◽  
Soft Palate ◽  
Hard Palate ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Oronasal Fistula ◽  
Type Iv ◽  
Cleft Palate Repair ◽  
Palate Repair ◽  
Fistula Rate

Objective: The aims of the study were to assess the postoperative oronasal fistula rate after 1-stage and 2-stage cleft palate repair and identify risk factors associated with its development. Design: Systematic review. Setting: Various primary cleft and craniofacial centers in the world. Patients, Participants: Syndromic and nonsyndromic cleft lip, alveolus, and palate patients who had undergone primary cleft palate surgery. Intervention: Assessment of oronasal fistula frequency and correlation with staging, timing, and technique of repair, gender, and Veau type. The results obtained in this systematic review were compared with those in previous reports. Outcome: The main outcome is represented by the occurrence of the oronasal fistula after 1-stage versus 2-stage palatoplasty. Results: The mean fistula percentage was 9.94%. In the Veau I, II, III, and IV groups, the respective fistula rates were 2%, 7.3%, 8.3%, and 12.5%. Oronasal fistula locations based on the Pittsburgh Fistula Classification System were soft palate (type II), 16.2%; soft palate–hard palate junction (type III), 29.3%; and hard palate (type IV), 37.3%. There were no statistically significant differences between 1-stage and 2-stage palatoplasty, syndromic and nonsyndromic, or male and female patients. Primary palatoplasty timing was not a significant predictor. Conclusion: Some disparities arose when comparing studies, mainly regarding location and types of clefting prone to oronasal fistulation. Interestingly, the fistula rate does not differ between 1- and 2-stage closure, and timing of the repair does not play a role.

Cleft Palate Repair Using a Marginal Musculo-Mucosal Flap

2006 ◽  
Vol 43 (6) ◽  
pp. 651-655 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hisao Ogata ◽  
Tatsuo Nakajima ◽  
Fumio Onishi ◽  
Ikkei Tamada ◽  
Makoto Hikosaka
Keyword(s):  
Cleft Palate ◽  
Soft Palate ◽  
Hard Palate ◽  
Primary Repair ◽  
Formation Rate ◽  
Fistula Formation ◽  
Mucosal Flap ◽  
Periosteal Flap ◽  
Oronasal Fistula ◽  
Palate Repair

Objective: To describe a modified procedure consisting of a mucoso-periosteal flap palatoplasty with a marginal musculo-mucosal flap (3M flap). This is also the first report of a primary repair for complete cleft palate using the 3M flap. We describe the lengthening effect of the nasal mucous layer of the soft palate and evaluate the fistula formation rate associated with this method. Methods: This procedure has been performed on 21 patients with unilateral complete clefts and on 27 patients with incomplete clefts. A mucoso-periosteal flap raised from the hard palate was used mainly for closure of the cleft and not for the push-back. The 3M flap repaired the deficit of the nasal mucosa, making sure that the soft palate was lengthened. Intravelar veloplasty was performed also. Results: The dimension of the nasal mucosal defect that can be filled with the 3M flap is 10 to 12 mm in length, oriented anterior-posterior, and 15 to 20 mm wide. Oronasal fistula formation was recognized in only 3 of 48 cases (2 of 21 complete clefts, 1 of 27 incomplete clefts) and were located at the hard-soft palate junction at the anterior portion of the 3M flap. Conclusions: This method has the theoretical advantages of (1) preventing fistula formation by filling the tissue deficiency with the 3M flap; (2) achieving better velopharyngeal function due to elongation of the soft palate and retropulsion of the muscular bundle, utilizing the 3M flap; and (3) minimizing maxillary growth retardation by adopting a non–push-back method of hard palate repair.

scholarly journals Cleft palate repair and variations

2009 ◽  
Vol 42 (S 01) ◽  
pp. S102-S109
Author(s):  
Karoon Agrawal
Keyword(s):  
Cleft Palate ◽  
Soft Palate ◽  
Hard Palate ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
The Face ◽  
Cleft Palate Repair ◽  
Palate Repair ◽  
Pharyngeal Flap ◽  
The One ◽  
Ideal Technique

ABSTRACTCleft palate affects almost every function of the face except vision. Today a child born with cleft palate with or without cleft lip should not be considered as unfortunate, because surgical repair of cleft palate has reached a highly satisfactory level. However for an average cleft surgeon palatoplasty remains an enigma. The surgery differs from centre to centre and surgeon to surgeon. However there is general agreement that palatoplasty (soft palate at least) should be performed between 6-12 months of age. Basically there are three groups of palatoplasty techniques. One is for hard palate repair, second for soft palate repair and the third based on the surgical schedule. Hard palate repair techniques are Veau-Wardill-Kilner V-Y, von Langenbeck, two-flap, Aleveolar extension palatoplasty, vomer flap, raw area free palatoplasty etc. The soft palate techniques are intravelar veloplasty, double opposing Z-plasty, radical muscle dissection, primary pharyngeal flap etc. And the protocol based techniques are Schweckendiek's, Malek's, whole in one, modified schedule with palatoplasty before lip repair etc. One should also know the effect of each technique on maxillofacial growth and speech. The ideal technique of palatoplasty is the one which gives perfect speech without affecting the maxillofacial growth and hearing. The techniques are still evolving because we are yet to design an ideal one. It is always good to know all the techniques and variations so that one can choose whichever gives the best result in one's hands. A large number of techniques are available in literature, and also every surgeon incorporates his own modification to make it a variation. However there are some basic techniques, which are described in details which are used in various centres. Some of the important variations are also described.

scholarly journals Oronasal fistula in cleft palate surgery

2009 ◽  
Vol 42 (S 01) ◽  
pp. S123-S128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Partha Sadhu
Keyword(s):  
Cleft Palate ◽  
Recurrence Rate ◽  
Surgical Procedures ◽  
Soft Palate ◽  
Hard Palate ◽  
Local Flaps ◽  
Oronasal Fistula ◽  
Palate Repair ◽  
Vascular Accidents ◽  
Nasal Regurgitation

ABSTRACTOronasal fistula (ONF) is the commonest complication associated with cleft palate surgery. The main symptoms associated with ONF are nasal regurgitation of food matter and hypernasality of voice. Repair of cleft palate under tension is considered to be the main reason of ONF though vascular accidents and infection can also be the cause. Most of the ONFs are situated in the hard palate or at the junction of hard and soft palate. Repair of ONF depends on its site, size and mode of presentation. A whole spectrum of surgical procedures starting from small local flaps to microvascular tissue transfers have been employed for closure of ONF. Recurrence rate of ONF is 25% on an average after the first attempt of repair.

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.

Current Practices and Controversies in Management of the Submucous Cleft Palate

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (5) ◽  
pp. 59-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynn Marty Grames ◽  
Kamlesh Patel
Keyword(s):  
Cleft Palate ◽  
Surgical Repair ◽  
Consensus Conference ◽  
Velopharyngeal Insufficiency ◽  
Specific Information ◽  
Methods Of Evaluation ◽  
Submucous Cleft Palate ◽  
Cleft Palate Repair ◽  
Palate Repair ◽  
Definition Of

A review of the published literature on submucous cleft palate was conducted. Specific information sought included definition and prevalence of submucous cleft palate, indications for surgical intervention, ideal age for intervention, evaluation tools for submucous cleft palate, and whether or not surgical repair was indicated for treatment of velopharyngeal insufficiency, feeding issues, or ear disease associated with submucous cleft. The research revealed that there is no consistent definition of submucous cleft palate in the published literature, which renders comparison of treatments difficult. In addition, the literature lacks consensus on the indications for submucous cleft palate repair, the effect of repair on ancillary disorders that may exist, and the best methods of evaluation for submucous cleft palate. A consensus conference on the submucous cleft may be valuable in guiding treatment and research going forward.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document