Surgical outcome of two-flap palatoplasty at King Fahad Medical City: A tertiary care center experience
The purpose of this study was to assess surgical outcomes of two-flap palatoplasty for management of cleft palate. Between January 2009 and January 2017, we recruited 29 nonsyndromic patients who underwent two-flap palatoplasty for cleft palate repair at the oral and maxillofacial department. Their medical records were procured, and surgical outcomes were assessed. Velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) was evaluated on the basis of speech assessment by a speech therapist. Speech abnormality (nasality, nasal emission, and articulation error) was assessed by a speech therapist using the GOSS-Pass test. Swallowing and regurgitation were assessed by a swallowing team. Fistula and wound dehiscence were clinically assessed by the primary investigator. Documented data were evaluated using statistical analysis. Among the study patients; 75.8 % had normal speech, 20.7 % developed VPI; 17.3% had hypernasality; 4.3% had hypernasality as well as nasal emission; 4.3% had hypernasality, nasal emission, and articulation errors; and 4.3% had articulation errors. Approximately 20% of the patients had fistulas (83.3% had oronasal fistulas and 16.7% had nasovestibular fistulas). Normal swallowing findings were noted in 93% of the patients. There were statistically significant relationships between age-repair and VPI (r=0.450, t=0.014), age-speech (r=0.525, t=0.003), and age-fistula development (r=0.414, t=0.026). Conversely, there were no significant relationships between age and dehiscence (r=0.127, t=0.512), age and swallowing (r=0.360, t=0.055), and age and regurgitation (r=0.306, t=0.106). Two-flap palatoplasty is a reliable technique with excellent surgical and speech outcomes. Early repair is associated with better speech outcome and less incidence of VPI.
PlumX Metrics provide insights into the ways people interact with individual pieces of research output (articles, conference proceedings, book chapters, and many more) in the online environment. Examples include, when research is mentioned in the news or is tweeted about. Collectively known as PlumX Metrics, these metrics are divided into five categories to help make sense of the huge amounts of data involved and to enable analysis by comparing like with like.
Copyright (c) 2018 Alwaleed Khalid Alammar, Abdulsalam Aljabab, Gururaj Arakeri
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.