Velopharyngeal insufficiency: an update on diagnostic and surgical techniques:

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

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to describe the clinical assessment recommendations for acquired velopharyngeal dysfunction (AVPD) and, through a literature review and online survey, summarize current practice patterns for evaluation and treatment pathway determination for this target population.

METHOD

An online survey to query current assessment procedures and treatment pathway recommendations for AVPD was developed. Following survey results, a literature review was completed to determine evidence-based recommendations for assessment procedures and intervention recommendations based on assessment findings. Literature search terms included the following: acquired velopharyngeal dysfunction, hypernasality, non-cleft velopharyngeal dysfunction, velopharyngeal dysfunction, velopharyngeal dysfunction AND iatrogenic, velopharyngeal dysfunction AND neurogenic, velopharyngeal dysfunction AND assessment OR evaluation, velopharyngeal dysfunction AND treatment OR intervention, velopharyngeal dysfunction AND practice patterns OR clinical guidelines, velopharyngeal insufficiency. Inclusion criteria were limited to practice patterns/recommendations for assessment and/or treatment recommendations for AVPD, English language articles published between 2000 and 2017, and peer-reviewed journals. Studies regarding solely congenital or cleft palate velopharyngeal dysfunction and intervention outcome studies were excluded. Forty articles met inclusionary criteria.

RESULTS

The online survey results indicated lack of consensus for AVPD assessment and treatment recommendation protocols, with 93% of respondents indicating the need for a clinical guide for developing treatment recommendations. The majority of recommendations were filtered into an algorithm for clinical decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical uncertainty among speech-language pathologists surveyed and the paucity of published clinical guidelines for assessing individuals with AVPD indicate the need for additional clinical research for this disorder, one that is heterogeneous and distinct from those with congenital velopharyngeal dysfunction. The proposed evidence-based clinical worksheet may assist in determining management for patients with AVPD and may serve as a starting place for validation of a clinical guideline.

Unilateral Buccinator Flap for Lengthening of Short Palate

BACKGROUND

Velopharyngeal insufficiency is one of the most frequent complications after cleft palate repair.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the results and complications of unilateral Buccinator flap (BMF) in velopharyngeal insufficiency.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

During 4 years the authors performed unilateral BMF in all short palates. Age, sex, demographic data, length of palate, cause of short palate, nasopharyngoscopy and videofluroscopy results, hyper nasality, nasal escape, nasal emission, nasal fluid leak, speech evaluation and results, outcome and complications of the treatment were surveyed before surgery and in 1, 3, 6 months after treatment.

RESULTS

The authors had 43 patients, 29 below 8 years old and 14 adults. Velopharyngeal gap was between 10 and 27 mm, mean 21 mm. Buccinator flap were measuring 15 to 19 mm in width and 32 to 56 mm in length. The operation time was 80 to 100 minutes, mean 86 minutes.Nasal emission, nasal escape, and nasal leak were treated in all patients.Hyper nasality was completely improved in all of the patients below 8 years old (29 patients) and in 10 patients of the adults (totally 39 patients, 90.6%). And it was improved significantly in other 4 patients (9.4%). The speech evaluation reported between 70% and 86% improvements.The lengthening of the palate was between 12 and 19 mm, mean 17 mm.The satisfaction of the patients was as 0% poor, 2.3% fair, 72.1% good, and 25.6% excellent.

CONCLUSION

Unilateral BMF is reliable, promising, and safe flap for lengthening of short palate and it can lengthen the palate up to 19 mm. The time of surgery is very short compared with other methods. It is an anatomical treatment versus pharyngeal flap which is not an anatomical one. Speech improvement will achieve in 70% to 86% patients.