Koh Kyung S, Kang Byoung Su, Seo Dong Wan
Department of Plastic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
J Craniofac Surg. 2009 Jan;20(1):111-4; discussion 115. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e318195ab0a.
Two-flap palatoplasty using mucoperiosteal flaps is becoming popular for wide cleft palates. We found that elevation of the cleft-side mucoperiosteal flap was sufficient to close the defect without elevation or relaxing incision in the noncleft side when performing 2-flap palatoplasty for a complete unilateral cleft palate. We have termed this modified 2-flap palatoplasty. The present study compared speech after classic and modified 2-flap palatoplasty for unilateral complete cleft palate.
Of 31 unilateral complete cleft lip and palate patients, 16 underwent the classic 2-flap palatoplasty between September 1998 and September 2000, and 15 underwent modified 2-flap palatoplasty between November 2000 and November 2002. Postoperative speech evaluation was undertaken by a speech pathologist. Patients with functional speech problems such as hypernasality or compensatory articulation were recommended for speech therapy. In cases where speech therapy did not result in normal speech, patients underwent secondary velopharyngeal surgery and further speech therapy.
Fifteen of 16 patients who underwent the classic procedure were followed up, of which 5 showed hypernasality or compensatory articulation upon speech evaluation. Four of those patients required secondary velopharyngeal surgery. All 15 patients who underwent the modified procedure were followed up. Six of those patients showed hypernasality or compensatory articulation, of which 2 required secondary velopharyngeal surgery. There was no statistically significant difference between the classic and modified groups in terms of palatal fistula rate, speech, and secondary surgery rate.
There was no difference between the classic and modified 2-flap palatoplasty in terms of postoperative palatal fistula rate, speech, and secondary surgery rate. Because of the advantages of the modified procedure in terms of fewer incisions, these findings indicate that larger long-term studies are warranted, particularly to evaluate maxillary bone growth.
使用黏骨膜瓣的双瓣腭裂修复术在修复宽腭裂方面正变得越来越流行。我们发现在对单侧完全性腭裂进行双瓣腭裂修复术时,仅掀起腭裂侧的黏骨膜瓣就足以关闭缺损,而无需在非腭裂侧掀起或做松弛切口。我们将这种改良的双瓣腭裂修复术命名为改良双瓣腭裂修复术。本研究比较了经典双瓣腭裂修复术和改良双瓣腭裂修复术治疗单侧完全性腭裂后的语音情况。
31名单侧完全性唇腭裂患者中,16例于1998年9月至2000年9月接受经典双瓣腭裂修复术,15例于2000年11月至2002年11月接受改良双瓣腭裂修复术。术后由言语病理学家进行语音评估。对于存在高鼻音或代偿性构音等功能性语音问题的患者,建议进行言语治疗。若言语治疗后语音仍未恢复正常,则患者接受二期腭咽成形手术及进一步的言语治疗。
接受经典手术的16例患者中有15例得到随访,其中5例在语音评估时表现出高鼻音或代偿性构音。这些患者中有4例需要接受二期腭咽成形手术。接受改良手术的15例患者均得到随访。其中6例表现出高鼻音或代偿性构音,其中2例需要接受二期腭咽成形手术。经典组和改良组在腭瘘发生率、语音及二期手术率方面无统计学显著差异。
经典双瓣腭裂修复术和改良双瓣腭裂修复术在术后腭瘘发生率、语音及二期手术率方面无差异。由于改良手术在切口较少方面具有优势,这些结果表明有必要进行更大规模的长期研究,特别是评估上颌骨生长情况。