Mucoperiosteal Flap Necrosis after Primary Palatoplasty in Patients with Cleft Palate

Flap Necrosis Associated With Furlow's Palatoplasty

BACKGROUND

Numerous authors have reported their outcomes after using Furlow's palatoplasty for cleft palate repair. However, little attention has been given to the operative complications associated with this technique. The present study was carried out to present cases and analyze the various factors influencing the development of this complication accompanying Furlow's palatoplasty.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a case report study of patients with cleft palate admitted to our center due to sequelae after primary cleft palate repair using Furlow palatoplasty between 2003 and 2021. Patient information was identified from the Smile Train cleft charity organization, parents' reports, and hospital records (intake forms and operating room registries).

RESULTS

Five patients were identified as having secondary cleft palate with palatal flap necrosis and associated with Furlow palatoplasty during patient evaluation at our center between 2003 and 2021. The observed prevalence was 1.54%.

CONCLUSIONS

Palatal flap necrosis is a rare but serious complication after primary Furlow's palatoplasty. The occurrence of this complication can be reduced by careful preoperative planning, and prevention is possible.

The Lima Surgical Protocol for Cleft Palate Repair

BACKGROUND

A cleft team experience addressing non-syndromic cleft palate and cleft lip and palate is presented. The purpose of the present study is to compare surgical outcomes using 2 different protocols for cleft palate repair provided by a cleft team in Lima, Perú.

METHODS

This is a comparative study between 2 groups of patients with non-syndromic cleft palate who were operated using different surgical protocols from 1999 to 2014. One hundred twenty-four children with non-syndromic isolated cleft palate and cleft lip and palate treated from 2007 to 2014 using a surgical protocol developed by our cleft team in Lima, Perú were compared with 145 children with cleft palate and cleft lip and palate treated by the same team using different protocol from 1999 to 2007. Data collection was accomplished by evaluation of symptomatic oronasal fistulas, presence of velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Statistical significant differences were observed between the 2 groups regarding the development of flap necrosis in favor of the Lima protocol. No significant difference in palatal fistula and VPI rate between the 2 protocols was found.

CONCLUSIONS

The Lima Surgical Protocol for cleft palate repair is an alternative strategy which uses the strengths of different surgical techniques based on the severity of the cleft. We observed better surgical outcomes using the Lima protocol with regards to postoperative complications in patients with non-syndromic cleft palate.