Does Distraction Lower Risk of VPI Compared to Conventional Maxillary Advancement? A Retrospective Cohort Study of Adolescents with Cleft Palate

Overview

Journal Cleft Palate Craniofac J

Specialties Dentistry
General Surgery

Date 2022 Nov 14

PMID 36373608

Authors

Sara Kinter

Srinivas Susarla

Joseph Christopher Delaney

Kathy Chapman

Hitesh Kapadia

Noel Weiss

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether method of maxillary advancement in adolescents with cleft palate with or without cleft lip (CP ± L) influences post-operative velopharyngeal function.

Design: Retrospective cohort.

Setting: Pediatric Tertiary Care Hospital.

Participants: One hundred and ninety-nine patients with CP ± L after LeFort I osteotomy for maxillary advancement at our institution between January 2007 and June 2019.

Interventions: LeFort I osteotomy via distraction osteogenesis (DO) or conventional osteotomy (CO).

Main Outcome Measures: Patients who underwent DO or CO were compared for the presence of velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI), as measured by perceptual rating by a craniofacial speech-language pathologist.

Citing Articles

Measurement Matters: MRI Analysis of Differing Anatomic Measurement Techniques for Velar Length and the Velopharyngeal Needs Ratio.

Mason K, Hanson B, Black J Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2024; 12(2):e5617.

PMID: 38375369 PMC: 10876255. DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000005617.

References

Schafer J, Graham J . Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychol Methods. 2002; 7(2):147-77. View

Quejada J, Bell W, Kawamura H, Zhang X . Skeletal stability after inferior maxillary repositioning. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1987; 2(2):67-74. View

Pet M, Dodge R, Siebold B, Kinter S, Perkins J, Tse R . Speech and Surgical Outcomes in Children With Veau Types III and IV Cleft Palate: A Comparison of Internationally Adopted and Nonadopted Children. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018; 55(3):396-404. DOI: 10.1177/1055665617735109. View

Cicchetti D . Multiple comparison methods: establishing guidelines for their valid application in neuropsychological research. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1994; 16(1):155-61. DOI: 10.1080/01688639408402625. View

Yatabe-Ioshida M, Campos L, Yaedu R, Trindade-Suedam I . Upper Airway 3D Changes of Patients With Cleft Lip and Palate After Orthognathic Surgery. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018; 56(3):314-320. DOI: 10.1177/1055665618778622. View

Harjunpaa R, Alaluusua S, Leikola J, Heliovaara A . Le Fort I osteotomy in cleft patients: Maxillary advancement and velopharyngeal function. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2019; 47(12):1868-1874. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2019.11.017. View

SUBTELNY J . A cephalometric study of the growth of the soft palate. Plast Reconstr Surg (1946). 1957; 19(1):49-62. DOI: 10.1097/00006534-195701000-00007. View

Satoh K, Wada T, Tachimura T, Fukuda J . Velar ascent and morphological factors affecting velopharyngeal function in patients with cleft palate and noncleft controls: a cephalometric study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005; 34(2):122-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2004.05.002. View

Zou G . A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol. 2004; 159(7):702-6. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwh090. View

10.

Chanchareonsook N, Whitehill T, Samman N . Speech outcome and velopharyngeal function in cleft palate: comparison of Le Fort I maxillary osteotomy and distraction osteogenesis--early results. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2007; 44(1):23-32. DOI: 10.1597/05-003. View

11.

Cohen J . Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull. 2009; 70(4):213-20. DOI: 10.1037/h0026256. View

12.

Kumar A, Gabbay J, Nikjoo R, Heller J, Ohara C, Sisodia M . Improved outcomes in cleft patients with severe maxillary deficiency after Le Fort I internal distraction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006; 117(5):1499-509. DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000206308.86089.86. View

13.

Hernan M, Hernandez-Diaz S, Robins J . A structural approach to selection bias. Epidemiology. 2004; 15(5):615-25. DOI: 10.1097/01.ede.0000135174.63482.43. View

14.

Schendel S, Oeschlaeger M, Wolford L, EPKER B . Velopharyngeal anatomy and maxillary advancement. J Maxillofac Surg. 1979; 7(2):116-24. DOI: 10.1016/s0301-0503(79)80023-5. View

15.

Skirko J, Weaver E, Perkins J, Kinter S, Eblen L, Sie K . Validity and responsiveness of VELO: a velopharyngeal insufficiency quality of life measure. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013; 149(2):304-11. PMC: 4074517. DOI: 10.1177/0194599813486081. View

16.

. Parameters for evaluation and treatment of patients with cleft lip/palate or other craniofacial anomalies. American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association. March, 1993. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1993; 30 Suppl:S1-16. View

17.

Skirko J, Weaver E, Perkins J, Kinter S, Eblen L, Martina J . Change in Quality of Life with Velopharyngeal Insufficiency Surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015; 153(5):857-64. PMC: 5940930. DOI: 10.1177/0194599815591159. View

18.

Alaluusua S, Turunen L, Saarikko A, Geneid A, Leikola J, Heliovaara A . The effects of Le Fort I osteotomy on velopharyngeal function in cleft patients. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2018; 47(2):239-244. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2018.11.016. View

19.

Janulewicz J, Costello B, Buckley M, Ford M, Close J, Gassner R . The effects of Le Fort I osteotomies on velopharyngeal and speech functions in cleft patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004; 62(3):308-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2003.08.014. View

20.

Hallgren K . Computing Inter-Rater Reliability for Observational Data: An Overview and Tutorial. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol. 2012; 8(1):23-34. PMC: 3402032. DOI: 10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p023. View