Speech correcting surgery after primary palatoplasty: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: In cleft palate patients, the soft palate is commonly closed using straight-line palatoplasty, Z-palatoplasty, or palatoplasty with buccal flaps. Currently, it is unknown which surgical technique is superior regarding speech outcomes. The aim of this review is to study the incidence of speech correcting surgery (SCS) per soft palatoplasty technique and to identify variables which are associated with this outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was carried out according to the PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to focus on the incidence of SCS after soft palatoplasty. Additional variables like surgical modification, cleft morphology, syndrome, age at palatoplasty, fistula and assessment of velopharyngeal function were reported. A modified New-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used for quality appraisal. Pooled estimates from the meta-analysis were calculated using a random-effects model. RESULTS: One thousand twenty-nine studies were found of which 54 were included in the analysis. The pooled estimate proportion of SCS after straight-line palatoplasty was 19% (95% CI 15-24), after Z-palatoplasty 6% (95% CI 4-9), and after palatoplasty with buccal flaps 7% (95% CI 4-11). CONCLUSIONS: A lower SCS rate was found in patients receiving Z-palatoplasty when compared to straight-line palatoplasty. We propose a minimum set of outcome parameters which ideally should be included in future studies regarding speech outcomes after cleft palate repair. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Current literature reports highly heterogenous data regarding cleft palate repair. Our recommended set of parameters may address this inconsistency and could make intercenter comparison possible and of better quality.

Effectiveness of a digital vs face-to-face preoperative assessment: A randomized, noninferiority clinical trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Digitalizing the preoperative assessment clinic can be a solution to keep up with the growing demand for surgery. It remains unclear if a digital preoperative assessment clinic is as safe, and effective in terms of patient health outcomes and experience compared to face-to-face consultations. This study aimed to compare quality of recovery and mental state in patients undergoing a digital preoperative assessment versus regular face-to-face consultations. DESIGN: This was a single centre, randomized (1:1), parallel, open-label, noninferiority trial. SETTING: The preoperative clinic and preoperative unit of an urban secondary care hospital. PATIENTS: All adult, Dutch speaking, ASA I-IV patients with access to an online computer who required surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Digital preoperative screening, consisting of an electronic screening questionnaire and web-based platform with personalized information and recommendations related to the procedure, or face-to-face screening, consisting of two 20-min in-hospital consultations. MEASUREMENTS: The primary endpoint was quality of recovery, measured 48 h after surgery. The analysis followed a per-protocol principle, and only patients who underwent the intended screening were included in the analysis. The noninferiority margin was set at -6. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05535205, during the study on 09/08/2022, before analysing results. MAIN RESULTS: Between March 1, 2021 and 30 august 2021, 480 patients were assessed for eligibility. 400 patients were randomly assigned to the digital group (n = 200) or face-to-face group (n = 201), of which respectively 117 and 124 patients were eventually included in the primary analysis. The mean quality of recovery score of patients undergoing digital screening (158) was non-inferior to that of patients undergoing face-to-face screening (155), with a mean difference of 3·2 points and a 97.5% lower confidence limit of -2.1 points. There were no adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: A digital preoperative screening is not inferior to face-to-face consultations in patients undergoing predominantly low to moderate risk surgery. Given its potential to reduce physician workload, reallocate healthcare resources, and lower healthcare costs, a digital preoperative screening may be a better choice for preoperative assessments.