» Articles » PMID: 39136069

The Levator Veli Palatini: Are All Segments Created Equal?

Overview
Date 2024 Aug 13
PMID 39136069
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: The levator veli palatini (LVP) muscle has two segments with distinct roles in velopharyngeal function. Previous research suggests longer extravelar segments with shorter intravelar segments may lead to a more advantageous mechanism for velopharyngeal closure. The purpose of this study was to examine whether the distribution of the LVP intravelar and extravelar segments differs between children with cleft palate with and without VPI and controls.

Methods: The study included 97 children: 37 with cleft palate +/- lip with VPI, 37 controls, and 19 with cleft palate with normal resonance. Measures included mean LVP length, mean extravelar LVP length, and intravelar LVP length.

Results: Overall mean LVP length was similar ( = .267) between controls and children with cleft palate (with and without VPI). However, there was a significant difference (< .001) between group for both intravelar and extravelar LVP lengths: the intravelar segment was significantly longer in those with VPI compared to controls and children with cleft palate and normal resonance; and the extravelar segment was significantly shorter in those with VPI compared to controls and children with cleft palate and normal resonance.

Conclusions: Results from this study demonstrate a significant difference between the distribution of the functional segments of the LVP among children with VPI, with a more disadvantageous distribution of the muscle segments among those with VPI.

Citing Articles

Development and evaluation of a training program for implementation of velopharyngeal MRI in the clinical setting.

Snodgrass T, Perry J, Sitzman T Pediatr Radiol. 2025; .

PMID: 39953301 DOI: 10.1007/s00247-025-06186-6.


Does Successful Surgical Treatment of Velopharyngeal Insufficiency Aid in the Remediation of Compensatory Misarticulation Errors?.

Chee-Williams J, Bunton K, Alvarez-Montoya E, Cordero K, Perry J, Philp J Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2025; 34(2):868-876.

PMID: 39898817 PMC: 11902990. DOI: 10.1044/2024_AJSLP-24-00349.

References
1.
Perry J, Kotlarek K, Sutton B, Kuehn D, Jaskolka M, Fang X . Variations in Velopharyngeal Structure in Adults With Repaired Cleft Palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018; 55(10):1409-1418. PMC: 6691725. DOI: 10.1177/1055665617752803. View

2.
Williams J, Cordero K, Sitzman T . Assessing the Agreement of Hypernasality and Audible Nasal Emission Ratings Between Audio-Recordings and a Clinic Setting. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2023; 61(11):1901-1906. DOI: 10.1177/10556656231185494. View

3.
Inouye J, Pelland C, Lin K, Borowitz K, Blemker S . A computational model of velopharyngeal closure for simulating cleft palate repair. J Craniofac Surg. 2015; 26(3):658-62. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000001441. View

4.
Perry J, Williams J, Snodgrass T, Sitzman T . VPI Management in SATB2 Syndrome: Use of MRI to Evaluate Anatomy and Physiology in Non-Cleft VPI. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022; 60(11):1499-1504. PMC: 10183239. DOI: 10.1177/10556656221106888. View

5.
Cho J, Kim J, Lee H, Yoon J . Surgical anatomy of human soft palate. Laryngoscope. 2013; 123(11):2900-4. DOI: 10.1002/lary.24067. View