Greater Palatal Cleft Width Predicts an Increased Risk for Unfavorable Outcomes in Cleft Palate Repair.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of cleft width and cleft type on the need for secondary surgery and velopharyngeal competence from a longitudinal perspective. DESIGN: Retrospective, longitudinal study. SETTING: A single multidisciplinary craniofacial team at a university hospital. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients with unilateral or bilateral cleft lip and palate and cleft palate only (n = 313) born from 1984 to 2002, treated with 2-stage palatal surgery, were reviewed. A total of 213 patients were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The impact of initial cleft width and cleft type on secondary surgery. Assessment of hypernasality, audible nasal emission, and glottal articulation from routine follow-ups from 3 to 16 years of age. The assessments were compared with reassessments of 10% of the recordings. RESULTS: Cleft width, but not cleft type, predicted the need for secondary surgery, either due to palatal dehiscence or velopharyngeal insufficiency. The distribution of cleft width between the scale steps on a 4-point scale for hypernasality and audible nasal emission differed significantly at 5 years of age but not at any other age. Presence of glottal articulation differed significantly at 3 and 5 years of age. No differences between cleft types were seen at any age for any speech variable. CONCLUSIONS: Cleft width emerged as a predictor of the need for secondary surgery as well as more deviance in speech variables related to velopharyngeal competence during the preschool years. Cleft type was not related to the need for secondary surgery nor speech outcome at any age.

Skoog Primary Periosteoplasty versus Secondary Alveolar Bone Grafting in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Alveolus: Long-Term Effects on Alveolar Bone Formation and Maxillary Growth.

BACKGROUND: Clefts involving the alveolus are treated using one of two strategies: primary periosteoplasty at the time of lip repair or secondary alveolar bone grafting at mixed dentition. Most teams favor secondary alveolar bone grafting because of its high success rate, and concerns have been raised that primary periosteoplasty may interfere with maxillary growth. However, primary periosteoplasty may obviate the need for future bone grafting and is still practiced in some centers. Few studies compare the long-term outcomes of these two strategies. METHODS: Fifty-seven consecutive patients born with unilateral cleft lip and alveolus were studied retrospectively. All patients underwent primary lip repair using Skoog's method; 28 patients underwent primary periosteoplasty at the time of lip repair and the remaining 29 underwent secondary alveolar bone grafting at mixed dentition. Occlusal radiographs obtained at ages 10 and 16 years were analyzed for alveolar bone height. Cephalometric analysis assessed growth at ages 5, 10, and 18 years. RESULTS: Seventeen of 28 patients treated using primary periosteoplasty required later secondary bone grafting, and the bone height at age 16 years was lower in the primary periosteoplasty group (p < 0.0001). There was a more pronounced decrease in maxillary protrusion from ages 5 to 10 years in the primary periosteoplasty group (p < 0.03). However, at age 18 there was no significant difference in maxillary growth between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Primary periosteoplasty did not seem to inhibit long-term maxillary growth but was ineffective as a method of reconstructing the alveolar cleft. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.