Acquired Velopharyngeal Dysfunction: Survey, Literature Review, and Clinical Recommendations

Demystifying Velopharyngeal Dysfunction for Plastic Surgery Trainees Part 2: Speech Fundamentals and Perceptual Speech Assessment

Velopharyngeal dysfunction (VPD) is the inability to achieve proper closure of the velopharyngeal (VP) port, affecting speech and swallowing. The gold standard for diagnosis is auditory-perceptual speech evaluation by a specialized speech-language pathologist. This 3-part series provides a comprehensive discussion on (1) the anatomy and physiology of the velopharyngeal mechanism, (2) fundamental speech terminology and principles of perceptual speech assessment for VPD, and (3) techniques for objective evaluation of the VP port and surgical decision-making process. In part 2, the authros begin with the concepts and terminology required to understand the perceptual speech assessment of VPD, including resonance, articulation, and the differentiation between consonants and vowels. We review the types of speech samples used for evaluation such as single-word articulation tests, syllable repetition, sentence repetition, and spontaneous connected speech. Finally, we discuss the auditory-perceptual speech assessment for VPD, including the assessment of resonance, nasal air emission, articulation, and voice quality. The use of rating scales like the Pittsburgh Weighted Speech Scale (PWSS) and the Cleft Audit Protocol for Speech-Augmented-Americleft Modification (CAPS-A-AM) is highlighted. In addition, the significance of intraoral examinations, visual-tactile-auditory evaluations, and the assessment of voice quality are covered. Most textbook chapters discussing this topic assume a foundational knowledge of speech-language pathology, which a surgical trainee may lack. This study aimed to bridge the gap between surgical training and speech pathology, providing a comprehensive resource to enhance the understanding and management of VPD.

Demystifying Velopharyngeal Dysfunction for Plastic Surgery Trainees-Part 1: Anatomy and Physiology

The velopharyngeal (VP) port separates the nasopharynx from the oropharynx and is bordered by the velum, lateral pharyngeal walls, and posterior pharyngeal wall. Velopharyngeal dysfunction (VPD) is the inability to achieve proper closure of the VP port, affecting speech and swallowing. This 3-part series provides a comprehensive discussion on (1) the anatomy and physiology of the velopharyngeal mechanism; (2) fundamental speech terminology and principles of perceptual speech assessment for VPD; and (3) techniques for objective evaluation of the VP port and surgical decision-making process. In part 1, the authors focus on the anatomy and physiology of the velopharyngeal port, the anatomy of cleft palate, and the causes of VPD. There are 3 types of VPD: velopharyngeal insufficiency, involving structural deficits; velopharyngeal incompetence, resulting from neuromuscular issues; and velopharyngeal mislearning, due to maladaptive speech habits. VPD is commonly associated with cleft palate due to anatomic disruptions that impair velopharyngeal function. However, there are numerous causes of noncleft VPD, including congenital or acquired structural defects, neuromuscular conditions, and developmental/behavioral factors. Diagnosis and management of VPD require a multidisciplinary approach involving, at a minimum, surgeons and speech-language pathologists. Plastic surgery trainees often receive education on the surgical treatment of VPD, but without a foundational knowledge of the disease spectrum and speech pathology, the complex terminology can impede a thorough understanding of its diagnosis and management. This series serves as an accessible resource, providing the foundational knowledge required for surgical trainees new to this topic.

Demystifying Velopharyngeal Dysfunction for Plastic Surgery Trainees Part 3: Objective Assessment and Surgical Decision-Making

Velopharyngeal dysfunction (VPD) is the inability to achieve proper closure of the velopharyngeal (VP) port, affecting speech and swallowing. After an auditory-perceptual speech evaluation by a speech-language pathologist, objective assessment of the VP port is required to determine the need for surgical intervention. This 3-part series provides a comprehensive discussion on (1) the anatomy and physiology of the velopharyngeal mechanism; (2) fundamental speech terminology and principles of perceptual speech assessment for VPD; and (3) techniques for objective evaluation of the VP port and surgical decision-making process. In part 3, the authors focus on the modalities for objective VP port assessment, including both direct and indirect methods. Direct imaging techniques such as videofluoroscopy, nasoendoscopy, and MRI are detailed for their strengths and limitations in visualizing VP port function and preoperative planning. Indirect assessments, including nasometry and aerodynamic measurements, are also briefly discussed. The decision-making process for surgical intervention is explored, emphasizing factors such as the severity and etiology of VPD, VP closure patterns, palatal length, orientation of the levator veli palatini, and other patient-specific considerations. The authors review the surgical options for repair including palatoplasty procedures (Furlow palatoplasty, straight-line intravelar veloplasty, and palatal lengthening buccal myomucosal flaps) and pharyngoplasty procedures (posterior pharyngeal flaps and sphincter pharyngoplasty), highlighting their indications, techniques, and potential complications. This series serves as an accessible resource, providing the foundational knowledge required for surgical trainees new to this topic.

Acoustic and Physiological Voice Assessment And Maximum Phonation Time In Patients With Different Types Of Dysarthria

OBJECTIVE

To compare the maximum phonation time of /a/, acoustic glottal source parameters, and physiological measures in patients with dysarthria.

METHOD

Thirteen patients were classified according to dysarthria type and divided into functional profiles (hypofunctional, hyperfunctional, and mixed). Assessments of maximum phonation time of /a/, glottal source parameters, electroglottography, and nasometry were performed. Results were compared between groups using ANOVA and Tukey posthoc tests.

RESULTS

The highest fundamental frequency differed significantly between groups, with the hyperfunctional profile showing higher values than the other participant groups. Reductions in the maximum phonation time of /a/ and alterations in acoustic glottal source parameters and electroglottography measures were observed in all groups, with no significant differences between them. The remaining measures did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSION

The maximum phonation times for /a/ were reduced in all participant groups, suggesting air escape during phonation. The presence of alterations in several glottal source parameters in all participant groups is indicative of noise, tremor, and vocal instability. Lastly, the high fundamental frequency in patients with a hyperfunctional profile reinforces the presence of vocal instability. These findings suggest that, although the characteristics observed in the assessments were consistent with expectations of patients with dysarthria, it is difficult to perform a differential diagnosis of this condition based on acoustic and physiological parameters alone.

Surgical interventions in velopharyngeal dysfunction: comparative perceptual speech and nasometric outcomes for three techniques

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate speech outcomes following surgical intervention for velopharyngeal dysfunction (VPD). Perceptual speech outcome data were subsequently analyzed in conjunction with patient factors such as congenital abnormalities, presence of cleft lip and/or palate, and age of repair. We hope to aid in the eventual creation of treatment algorithms for VPD, allowing practitioners to tailor surgical technique selection to patient factors.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed for all patients who underwent surgical correction of VPD at London Health Sciences Centre between the years 2005 and 2018. Two hundred and two consecutive VPD patients (median age 10.6 years) were followed for an average of 20.2 months after having undergone a superiorly based pharyngeal flap (121), Furlow palatoplasty (72), or sphincteroplasty (9). Speech outcomes were measured via the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association (ACPA) perceptual speech assessment, and MacKay-Kummer Simplified Nasometric Assessment Procedures Revised (SNAP-R) was used to measure nasalence. Comparisons of mean preoperative and postoperative outcomes were made, as well as analyses regarding surgical procedure, syndrome, cleft status, and age.

RESULTS

Mean perceptual scores improved significantly postoperatively (p < .0001), and successful perceptual resonance was identified in 86.1% patients (n = 174). Postoperative perceptual speech scores for three ACPA domains were superior with pharyngeal flap compared to both Furlow palatoplasty and sphincteroplasty ([hypernasality: p < .001, p < .02], [audible nasal emissions: p < .002, p < .05], [velopharyngeal function: p < .001, p < .05]). Success rate was higher in pharyngeal flap (94.2%) than in Furlow palatoplasty (75.0%, p < .001) or sphincter pharyngoplasty (66.7%, p < .001). No significant difference was identified in success rate based on syndrome or cleft status.

CONCLUSION

Operative management of VPD is highly effective in improving perceptual speech outcomes. Given proper patient selection, all three procedures are viable treatment options for VPD. For those patients identified as appropriate to undergo a pharyngeal flap, robust improvements in speech outcomes were observed.

Towards development of guidelines for virtual administration of paediatric standardized language and literacy assessments: Considerations for clinicians and researchers

OBJECTIVES

Previous virtual care literature within the field of speech-language pathology has primarily focused on validating the virtual use of intervention programmes. There are fewer articles addressing the validity of conducting virtual assessments, particularly standardized assessment of oral language and literacy abilities in children. In addition, there is a lack of practical, useful recommendations available to support clinicians and researchers on how to conduct these assessment measures virtually. Given the recent rapid rise in virtual care and research as a result of the Coronavirus-19 pandemic, clinicians and researchers require guidance on best practices for virtual administration of these tools imminently. This article seeks to fill this gap in the literature by providing such recommendations.

METHODS

We (a) completed a narrative review of the extant literature, and (b) conducted semi-structured interviews with a group of 12 clinicians, students and researchers who had administered standardized language and literacy assessments with a variety of monolingual and multilingual school-aged children, with and without speech and language difficulties, in clinical and research settings. Six themes: candidacy for virtual assessment, communication and collaboration with caregivers, technology and equipment, virtual administration, ethics, consent and confidentiality, and considerations for bilingual populations were identified as a result of these two processes and were used to develop a set of recommendations to guide the use of standardized assessments in a virtual setting. In line with the Guidelines International Network, these recommendations were rated by group members, and reviewed by external stakeholders. A quasi-Delphi consensus procedure was used to reach agreement on ratings for recommendations.

RESULTS

We have developed and outlined several recommendations for clinicians and researchers to guide their use of standardized language and literacy assessments in virtual care, across six key themes.

CONCLUSIONS

This article is one of the first to share practical recommendations for virtual assessment in the domain of oral language and literacy assessment for clinicians and researchers. We hope the current recommendations will facilitate future clinical research in this area, and as the body of research in this field grows, this article will act as a basis for the development of formal Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Home and Clinical Literacy Practices for Children With Cleft Lip and Palate

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to examine experiences and practices related to supporting literacy development and preventing reading difficulties in children with cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P).

Methods:

Via online surveys, 67 respondents including 35 parents/guardians of children with CL/P and 32 speech-language pathologists (SLPs) answered questions about home literacy practices, clinical practices, and perceptions of SLPs’ role in literacy.

Results:

The variability in responses highlights both the positive contributions of parents/guardians and SLPs in supporting literacy development and preventing reading disabilities in children with cleft and the need for increased education and efforts to meet their literacy needs.