RESUMO
Assess agreement of hypernasality and audible nasal emission (ANE) ratings between audio-recordings and a clinic setting.Cross-sectional study using retrospective clinical recordings.Audio-recording ratings by two trained speech language pathologists.Percent agreement and intra- and inter-rater reliability of perceptual ratings.Intra-rater reliability (AC2) of 167 audio-recorded speech samples for the primary and secondary raters, respectively, was 0.82 and 0.79 for hypernasality; for ANE, it was 0.57 and 0.75. Inter-rater reliability was 0.77 for hypernasality and 0.63 for ANE. When comparing ratings made from audio-recording versus the original clinical ratings, intra-rater reliability was 0.85 and 0.61 (primary and secondary rater, respectively) for hypernasality and 0.21 and 0.34 for ANE.Ratings for hypernasality made from audio recordings were consistent with clinical evaluation, while ratings of ANE were not. ANE ratings made from audio recordings may not be a valid measure of velopharyngeal insufficiency speech characteristics.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Palate re-repair has been proposed as an effective treatment for velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) with a low risk of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the proportion of patients achieving normal speech resonance following palate re-repair for VPI, the proportion developing OSA, and the criteria for patient selection that are associated with increased effectiveness. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched from inception through April 2018 for English language articles evaluating palate re-repair for the treatment of VPI in patients with a repaired cleft palate. Inclusion criteria included reporting of hypernasality, nasal air emission, nasometry, additional VPI surgery, and/or OSA outcomes. Meta-analysis was conducted using random effects models. Risk of bias was assessed regarding criteria for patient selection, blinding of outcome assessors, and validity of speech assessment scale. RESULTS: Eighteen studies met inclusion criteria. The incidence of achieving no consistent hypernasality follow palate re-repair was 61% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 44%-75%). The incidence of additional surgery for persistent VPI symptoms was 21% (95% CI: 12%-33%). The incidence of OSA was 28% (95% CI: 13%-49%). Criteria for selecting patients to undergo re-repair varied, with anterior/sagittal position of palatal muscles (33%) and small velopharyngeal gap (22%) being the most common. No specific patient selection criteria led to superior speech outcomes (P = .6572). CONCLUSIONS: Palate re-repair achieves normal speech resonance in many but not all patients with VPI. Further research is needed to identify the specific examination and imaging findings that predict successful correction of VPI with re-repair.
