Effectiveness of secondary furlow palatoplasty with buccal myomucosal flap in correction of velopharyngeal insufficiency in patients with cleft palate

OBJECTIVES

The main purpose of this study was evaluation of the effectiveness of secondary furlow palatoplasty with buccal myomucosal flap (FPBF) for the treatment of velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) in patients with a cleft palate who were treated with two flap palatoplasty (TFP) in their primary palate repair.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty-three medically free children aged 4-8 years with non-syndromic and previously repaired cleft palate via TFP participated in the study. All patients received secondary surgery following the technique of FPBF. Preoperative speech evaluation was done before the secondary repair and 3 months after the surgery using a hypernasal speech scale, speech intelligibility scale, and nasopharyngoscopy.

RESULTS

A statistically significant improvement was observed regarding the degree of hypernasality and speech intelligibility while comparing the preoperative scores after the primary surgery to the postoperative scores after the secondary surgery. In addition, a statistically significant improvement was found in the nasopharyngoscopic assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

The incorporation of a buccal myomucosal flap with Furlow palatoplasty was successful in improving hypernasality, speech intelligibility, and nasopharyngoscopic scores in patients with cleft palate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05626933).

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This technique might be the surgical technique of choice while treating patients who are suffering from VPI after cleft palate repair.

Effects of two flap palatoplasty versus furlow palatoplasty with buccal myomucosal flap on maxillary arch dimensions in patients with cleft palate at the primary dentition stage: a cohort study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of two flap palatoplasty (TFP) versus Furlow palatoplasty with buccal myomucosal flap (FPBF) on maxillary arch dimensions in children at the primary dentition stage with cleft palate, in comparison to matching subjects without any craniofacial anomalies.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study included 28 subjects with an age range of 5-6 years; 10 non-cleft subjects were included in the control group, 9 patients treated with TFP, and 9 patients treated with FPBF. For the included patients, the maxillary models were scanned using a desktop scanner to produce virtual models, and the maxillary dimension measurements were virtually completed. The produced measurements were compared between the 3 groups. Maxillary models of the 28 participants were evaluated.

RESULTS

Statistically insignificant differences were detected between the 3 groups for arch symmetry measurements. Differences were detected in the inter-canine width between the 2 surgical groups and non-cleft group. Both arch length and posterior palatal depth significantly differ while comparing the TFP to the control group, with no differences between FPBF and the non-cleft group.

CONCLUSION

Furlow palatoplasty with buccal myomucosal flap might be considered a better surgical option than two flap palatoplasty for patients with cleft palate while evaluating maxillary arch dimensions at the primary dentition stage as a surgical outcome.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study gives insight into the surgical technique that has limited effect on the maxillary growth and dental arch dimension. Therefore, it decreases the need for orthodontic treatment and orthognathic surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT05405738 ).