Palatal Re-Repair With Z-Plasty in Treatment of Velopharyngeal Insufficiency of Syndromic and Nonsyndromic Patients With Cleft Palate.

BACKGROUND: Velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) often results from palatal shortening or insufficient levator function after cleft palate repair. AIMS: To assess the efficacy of palatal re-repair with Z-plasty in treatment of VPI for patients with isolated cleft palate (ICP). METHODS: This retrospective analysis comprised 130 consecutive patients who had ICP with VPI that required Z-plasty as secondary surgery between 2008 and 2017. Pre- and post-operative evaluation of velopharyngeal function was done perceptually and instrumentally by Nasometer. RESULTS: Median patient age at Z-plasty was 6.8 years (range 3.0-20.1). Of the 130 patients, preoperatively VPI was severe in 73 (56%), mild-to-moderate in 55 (42%), and borderline in 2 (2%). Postoperatively, 105 (81%) of patients achieved adequate (normal or borderline) velopharyngeal competence and 16 (12%) required second operation for residual VPI. The success rate was 84% in nonsyndromic patients, 79% in nonsyndromic Pierre Robin sequence patients, and 58% in syndromic patients. In syndromic children, the speech outcome was significantly worse than in nonsyndromic children (P = 0.014). Complications included wound healing problems in 3 patients (2%), mild infection in 1 patient (1%), postoperative bleeding in 1 (1%), and postoperative fistula in 2 (2%). CONCLUSION: Palatal re-repair with Z-plasty is a safe operation for VPI correction in patients with ICP with a success rate of 81%. In syndromic patients, the procedure did not seem to work as well as in nonsyndromic patients.

Palatal Re-Repair With Double-Opposing Z-Plasty in Treatment of Velopharyngeal Insufficiency of Patients With Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate.

BACKGROUND: Velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) is a common problem after cleft palate repair that is often related to palatal shortening and insufficient levator reconstruction. For VPI correction in our cleft center, palatal re-repair with double-opposing Z-plasty is the standard operation. AIMS: To assess the efficacy of double-opposing Z-plasty in treatment of VPI after primary surgery for unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). METHODS: This retrospective analysis comprised 109 consecutive UCLP patients born between 1997 and 2014 with VPI that required re-operation, and were operated on by 2 highvolume cleft surgeons, followed by perceptual and instrumental (Nasometer) evaluation of velopharyngeal competence (VPC). RESULTS: Preoperatively, VPI was severe in 96% (105 of 109) and mild-to-moderate in 4% (4 of 109). Median age at surgery was 5.6 years (range 2.8-21.9). Postoperatively, 84% of patients achieved adequate VPC: 65% (71 of 109) were competent and 19% (21 of 109) borderline competent. Postoperative adequate VPC was 89% (70 of 79) in nonsyndromic Finnish patients, 50% (4 of 8) in syndromic patients, and 82% (18 of 22) in adoption children. Compared to Finnish nonsyndromic patients, patients with syndrome had more residual VPI (P = 0.003), but no statistically significant difference existed for adoption patients (P = 0.251). Complications of the double-opposing Z-plasty included hemorrhage, postoperative mild airway obstruction, and wound-healing problems, each arising in 2 (1.8%) patients. Fourteen (13%) patients needed a second VPI operation. CONCLUSION: Double-opposing Z-plasty seems to be a good and safe treatment option for VPI in patients with previously repaired UCLP with a success rate of 84%.

Speech of Patients With Unilateral Complete Cleft Lip and Palate: Comparison of Three Different Surgical Protocols for Primary Repair.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Between 1997 and 2014, 3 protocols have been used in out cleft unit for primary repair of unilateral cleft lip and palate. During the Scandcleft randomized controlled trial closing the soft palate and lip at 4 months and the hard palate at 12 months (Protocol 1) was compared with closing the entire palate at 12 months (Protocol 2). Protocol 3 comprises closure of the lip and hard palate with a vomer flap at 4 months and the soft palate at 10 months. The purpose of this study was to compare subsequent velopharyngeal competence at age of 3 and 5 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study consisted of 160 non-syndromatic patients with a unilateral cleft lip and palate. Protocol 3 was retrospectively compared with Protocols 1 and 2 within the previously published Scandcleft study. RESULTS: At 3 years of age, normal or borderline competent velopharyngeal function was found in 68% of patients in Protocol 1, 74% of patients in Protocol 2, and 72% of patients in Protocol 3. At 5 years of age, the corresponding figures were 84%, 82%, and 92%. 21% of patients in Protocol 1, 4% in Protocol 2, and 23% in Protocol 3 had palatal reoperations before the age of 5 years. CONCLUSION: No significant differences emerged in velopharyngeal competence at age 3 years between the 3 protocols. Palatal reoperations were performed earlier in patient groups 1 and 3, explaining the difference in the velopharyngeal competence rate at the 5-year time-point.