The Smile Index: Part 3. A Simple, Prognostic Severity Scale for Unilateral Cleft Palate.
Journal
Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open
ISSN: 2169-7574
Titre abrégé: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101622231
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2021
Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
04
02
2021
accepted:
16
08
2021
entrez:
27
10
2021
pubmed:
28
10
2021
medline:
28
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Unilateral cleft palates have a large spectrum of variability. Key morphologic factors such as cleft width and palatal length are not represented in current classification systems. Palate length and velopharyngeal port size are clinically linked to speech outcomes, as the soft palate must close the posterior pharynx for proper phonation. This study investigates the relationship between objective preoperative measures and postoperative velopharyngeal port size, to define a reproducible severity scale. Surgical data were prospectively collected from unilateral cleft palate patients in Morocco, Bolivia, Vietnam, and Madagascar. Key measurements were cleft width and palate width at the hard-soft palate junction, alveolar cleft width, vertical alveolar discrepancy, velopharyngeal port size. Cleft width ratio (CWR) was defined as the width of the cleft at the hard-soft junction, divided by the palate width. Seventy-six patients were evaluated. Thirty-one had complete clefts and average age at surgical repair was 2.9 years. Mean CWR was 0.50 ± 0.12. Palate length was increased by an average of 2.2 mm (11%) after palatoplasty. Multivariate analysis determined greater CWR and larger preoperative velopharyngeal ports were significantly correlated with a smaller percent change in palate length after palatoplasty ( A wider palatal cleft decreases the surgeon's ability to decrease velopharyngeal port size through palatoplasty. Given the ease of measurement even in low-resource settings, CWR may be a valuable tool for setting expectations for speech results, modifying surgical technique, and correlating future speech outcomes in evidence-based cleft care.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Unilateral cleft palates have a large spectrum of variability. Key morphologic factors such as cleft width and palatal length are not represented in current classification systems. Palate length and velopharyngeal port size are clinically linked to speech outcomes, as the soft palate must close the posterior pharynx for proper phonation. This study investigates the relationship between objective preoperative measures and postoperative velopharyngeal port size, to define a reproducible severity scale.
METHODS
METHODS
Surgical data were prospectively collected from unilateral cleft palate patients in Morocco, Bolivia, Vietnam, and Madagascar. Key measurements were cleft width and palate width at the hard-soft palate junction, alveolar cleft width, vertical alveolar discrepancy, velopharyngeal port size. Cleft width ratio (CWR) was defined as the width of the cleft at the hard-soft junction, divided by the palate width.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Seventy-six patients were evaluated. Thirty-one had complete clefts and average age at surgical repair was 2.9 years. Mean CWR was 0.50 ± 0.12. Palate length was increased by an average of 2.2 mm (11%) after palatoplasty. Multivariate analysis determined greater CWR and larger preoperative velopharyngeal ports were significantly correlated with a smaller percent change in palate length after palatoplasty (
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
A wider palatal cleft decreases the surgeon's ability to decrease velopharyngeal port size through palatoplasty. Given the ease of measurement even in low-resource settings, CWR may be a valuable tool for setting expectations for speech results, modifying surgical technique, and correlating future speech outcomes in evidence-based cleft care.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34703715
doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003870
pmc: PMC8542126
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e3870Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosure: The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this article.
Références
Clin Plast Surg. 1975 Apr;2(2):261-88
pubmed: 1149372
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000 Nov;106(6):1254-9; discussion 1260-1
pubmed: 11083554
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018 Jan;141(1):137-146
pubmed: 28922326
Arch Otolaryngol. 1982 Mar;108(3):147-50
pubmed: 7065973
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1971 May;47(5):469-70
pubmed: 5574216
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008 Feb;121(2):587-595
pubmed: 18300979
Cleft Palate J. 1973 Jan;10:62-71
pubmed: 4566695
Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2012 Sep-Oct;14(5):360-4
pubmed: 22508897
JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2014 May-Jun;16(3):206-10
pubmed: 24652124
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2010 Nov;47(6):623-30
pubmed: 21039279
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008 Mar;45(2):172-8
pubmed: 18333650
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1994 Dec;94(7):933-41; discussion 942-3
pubmed: 7972481
Am J Otolaryngol. 1997 Jan-Feb;18(1):38-46
pubmed: 9006676
J Craniofac Surg. 2017 Jul;28(5):1369-1374
pubmed: 28582287
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Oct;128(4):342e-360e
pubmed: 21921748
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 Apr;143(4):790e-797e
pubmed: 30921136