Buccal fat pad in cleft palate repair- An institutional experience of 27 cases

A Review of the Use of Buccal Fat Pad in Cleft Palate Repair

OBJECTIVE

To review the available evidence on the use of the Buccal Fat Pad in primary and secondary Cleft Palate repair.

METHODS

This is a narrative review. A computerized literature search was conducted for articles published till February 2022 using the Mesh phrases buccal fat pad AND cleft palate, Bichat's Fat pad AND cleft palate, buccal fat pad OR Bichats Fat pad AND cleft palate.

RESULTS

A total of 35 articles were included in this review based on the set eligibility criteria. Most of the studies were retrospective case reviews (n  =  16, 45.7%), and the aggregate number of patients from all included studies was 666. Reported uses of the buccal fat pad (BFP) in association with cleft palate repair include the closure of central cleft palate defect and nasal floor in primary cleft palate repair, oronasal fistula repair following primary repair of cleft palate, and closure of relieving incision defect in primary repair of cleft palate. Complications reported were 24 cases of Oronasal Fistula (ONF), 2 dehiscences, and 4 transient mucosal defects.

CONCLUSION

The high success rate, vascularity, ease of tissue harvest, and low donor site morbidity all support its use as an adjunct flap in cleft palate repair, especially in the closure of wide palatal clefts, to prevent post-palatal repair fistula, wound contracture, and subsequently velopharyngeal insufficiency and possibly midface hypoplasia.

Microfragmented Fat and Biphasic Calcium Phosphates for Alveolar Cleft Repair: Protocol for a Prospective, Nonblinded, First-in-Human Clinical Study

BACKGROUND

Biphasic calcium phosphates (BCP) may serve as off-the-shelf alternatives for iliac crest-derived autologous bone in alveolar cleft reconstructions. To add osteoinductivity to the osteoconductive BCPs to achieve similar regenerative capacity as autologous bone, a locally harvested buccal fat pad will be mechanically fractionated to generate microfragmented fat (MFAT), which has been shown to have high regenerative capacity due to high pericyte and mesenchymal stem cell content and a preserved perivascular niche.

OBJECTIVE

Our primary objectives will be to assess the feasibility and safety of the BCP-MFAT combination. The secondary objective will be efficacy, which will be evaluated using radiographic imaging and histological and histomorphometric evaluation of biopsies taken 6 months postoperatively, concomitant with dental implant placement.

METHODS

Eight patients with alveolar cleft (≥15 years) will be included in this prospective, nonblinded, first-in-human clinical study. MFAT will be prepared intraoperatively from the patient's own buccal fat pad. Regular blood tests and physical examinations will be conducted, and any adverse events (AEs) or serious EAs (SAEs) will be meticulously recorded. Radiographic imaging will be performed prior to surgery and at regular intervals after reconstruction of the alveolar cleft with the BCP-MFAT combination. Biopsies obtained after 6 months with a trephine drill used to prepare the implantation site will be assessed with histological and histomorphometric analyses after methylmethacrylate embedding and sectioning.

RESULTS

The primary outcome parameter will be safety after 6 months' follow-up, as monitored closely using possible occurrences of SAEs based on radiographic imaging, blood tests, and physical examinations. For efficacy, radiographic imaging will be used for clinical grading of the bone construct using the Bergland scale. In addition, bone parameters such as bone volume, osteoid volume, graft volume, and number of osteoclasts will be histomorphometrically quantified. Recruitment started in November 2019, and the trial is currently in the follow-up stage. This protocol's current version is 1.0, dated September 15, 2019.

CONCLUSIONS

In this first-in-human study, not only safety but also the histologically and radiographically assessed regenerative potential of the BCP-MFAT combination will be evaluated in an alveolar cleft model. When an SAE occurs, it will be concluded that the BCP-MFAT combination is not yet safe in the current setting. Regarding AEs, if they do not occur at a higher frequency than that in patients treated with standard care (autologous bone) or can be resolved by noninvasive conventional methods (eg, with analgesics or antibiotics), the BCP-MFAT combination will be considered safe. In all other cases, the BCP-MFAT combination will not yet be considered safe.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Indonesia Clinical Trial Registry INA-EW74C1N; https://tinyurl.com/28tnrr64.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/42371.

Tissue adjuncts in primary cleft palate reconstruction: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Tissue adjunct is non-palatal tissue used to manage tension at the defect site by providing additional coverage. This review aimed to compare outcomes of various adjuncts employed in primary palatoplasty.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library with keywords cleft palate, palatoplasty, surgical flaps, and allografts. Data extracted included demographics, cleft severity, primary/adjunctive techniques, outcomes, and follow-up periods. Logistic regression analyses and chi-squared tests were performed to investigate associations among variables.

RESULTS

A total of 1332 patients (aged 3 months-5 years) with follow-up of 1 month to 21 years were included. Cleft severity included submucous cleft (1.7%), Veau I/II (33.3%), Veau III (46.3%), and Veau IV (15.1%). Most reported techniques were Furlow (52%) and intravelar veloplasty (14.3%) for soft palate, Bardach (27.2%), and V-Y Pushback (11.1%) for hard palate. Buccal myomucosal flap (BMMF) was performed in 45.4% of cases, followed by buccal fat pad flap/graft (BFP) in 40.8% and acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in 14%. Severe clefts (Veau III/IV) were repaired more frequently with BMMF compared with ADM (p = 0.003) and BFP (p = 0.01). Oronasal fistula occurred in 3.1% of patients, and velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) in 4%, both associated with Veau IV (fistula: p = 0.002, VPI: p = 0.0002). No significant differences were found in fistula (p = 0.79) or VPI (p = 0.14) rates between adjuncts. In severe clefts (Veau III/IV), ADM was associated with fistula formation (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Adjuncts in primary palatoplasty may mitigate unfavorable outcomes associated with severe clefts. BMMF is superior, given its inherent tissue properties, whereas BFP is effective in reducing fistula formation.

Buccal Fat Pad in Primary and Secondary Cleft Palate Repair: A Systematic Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVE

To review the evidence supporting the use of buccal fat pad (BFP) in primary and secondary cleft palate repair and its short- and long- term clinical outcomes.

DESIGN

Systematic review conducted by 2 independent reviewers following PRISMA guidelines.

SETTING: NONE PARTICIPANTS

Articles were identified from three databases (Pubmed/Medline, Embase and Web of Science). Search terms included "cleft palate", "palatoplasty", "palate repair", "buccal fat pad".

INTERVENTIONS

Use of BFP in primary and secondary cleft palatoplasty.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes were immediate postoperative complications, postoperative fistula, and maxillary growth. Secondary outcomes were palatal length, speech, and donor site morbidity.

RESULTS

Ninety-one reports were retrieved after excluding duplicates. Twenty-three studies were included (13 case series and 10 comparative studies). Overall level of evidence was low. Randomized and non-randomized studies had a high risk of bias. In primary palatoplasty, BFP was more frequently used filling lateral relaxing incisions(57.4%), or in the hard-soft palate junction and covering mucosal defects(30.1%). In these patients, post operative fistula incidence was 2.8%. Two studies found wider transverse maxillary dimensions after BFP use. No higher incidence of bleeding, infection, dehiscence, or flap necrosis was reported. In secondary palatoplasty, no recurrent fistulas were reported for patients undergoing BFP for fistula repair.

CONCLUSIONS

BFP appears to be associated with a favorable impact in fistula prevention and management, as well as in transverse maxillary growth. However, there is a high heterogeneity among studies, high risk of bias and overall low quality of evidence. More high-quality research with long-term follow-up is warranted.

Anatomical and Surgical Implications of the Usage of Bichat Fat Pad in Oroantral Communication, Maxillary, Palatal, and Related Surgeries-Narrative Review

The buccal fat pad, also called the Bichat's fat pad (BFP), is an encapsulated fat mass located in the cheek. This type of specialized fat mass can be used both as a pedicular or free graft in various surgeries and approaches. Due to its easy access from the oral cavity approach, it is commonly used for oroantral and palatal fistula closure. The knowledge of its anatomy and surrounding tissues plays a role in its mobilization and suturing onto the desired defect in the palatal or maxillary region. The BFP is mostly associated with the primary approach used for a fistula or bone surgery. Alternatively, the procedure can be performed with a single approach incision, which does not compromise the appearance or the function of the operating or adjacent areas. The most important inclusion criteria for BFP usage and surgical limitations are highlighted. The BFP is used for multiple purposes in reconstructive and oncology surgery and also has its use in esthetic and facial contouring procedures. The amount, volume, and shape of the BFP are mostly associated with the scope of their usage. The aim of the following narrative review is to present the surgical and anatomical implications of fat pads in maxillary and palatal surgeries.

Double-opposing Z-Plasty Extended with a Pedicled Buccal Fat Pad Flap for Correcting Velopharyngeal Insufficiency after Primary Palatoplasty

INTRODUCTION

Furlow double-opposing Z-plasty (DOZ) lengthens the soft palate; however, this lengthening is achieved at the expense of increased mucosal flap tension. Thus, its use is limited in patients with severe tension applied on mucosal flap after DOZ. In this study, DOZ was combined with a buccal fat pad (BFP) flap to maximize palatal lengthening and muscle repositioning.

METHODS

This study included patients who underwent surgical correction for velopharyngeal insufficiency between December 2016 and February 2019. Patients with more than moderate degree hypernasality following primary palatoplasty were included in the study. Patients younger than 4 years of age, those with a submucous cleft palate, or syndromic patients were excluded. Speech outcomes were investigated for those who underwent DOZ only (DOZ group, n = 17) and those in whom a BFP was used (BFP group, n = 15) pre- and postoperatively. The velopharyngeal gaps between the uvula and pharyngeal wall were measured before and immediately after surgery to estimate the palatal length.

RESULTS

Most patients who received a BFP showed improvement in hypernasality. However, the hypernasality of the DOZ group was more severe than that of the BFP group (p = 0.023). The extent of palatal lengthening was 4.4 ± 1.7 mm and 7.5 ± 2.1 mm in the DOZ and BFP groups, respectively (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

BFPs reduced the tension of the DOZ mucosal flap and maximized palatal lengthening and muscle repositioning. They promoted velopharyngeal closure in patients with moderate and moderate-to-severe velopharyngeal insufficiency. Hence, our method improves the surgical outcomes of patients with velopharyngeal insufficiency after primary palatoplasty.