Search

Objective: Identification of patient factors influencing velopharyngeal function for speech following initial cleft palate repair. Design: A literature search of relevant databases from inception until 2018 was performed using medical subject headings and keywords related to cleft palate, palatoplasty and speech assessment. Following three stage screening data extraction was performed. Setting: Systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant literature. Patients/Participants: Three hundred and eighty-three studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising data on 47 658 participants. Interventions: Individuals undergoing initial palatoplasty. Main Outcome Measures: Studies including participants undergoing initial cleft palate repair where the frequency of secondary speech surgery and/or velopharyngeal function for speech was recorded. Results: Patient factors reported included cleft phenotype (95% studies), biological sex (64%), syndrome diagnosis (44%), hearing loss (28%), developmental delay (16%), Robin Sequence (16%) and 22q11.2 microdeletion syndrome (11%). Meta-analysis provided strong evidence that rates of secondary surgery and velopharyngeal dysfunction varied according to cleft phenotype (Veau I best outcomes, Veau IV worst outcomes), Robin Sequence and syndrome diagnosis. There was no evidence that biological sex was associated with worse outcomes. Many studies were poor quality with minimal follow-up. Conclusions: Meta-analysis demonstrated the association of certain patient factors with speech outcome, however the quality of the evidence was low. Uniform, prospective, multi-centre documentation of preoperative characteristics and speech outcomes is required to characterise risk factors for post-palatoplasty velopharyngeal insufficiency for speech. Systematic Review Registration: Registered with PROSPERO CRD42017051624. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective : To investigate the relationship between patient-related factors (sex, cleft type, cleft extent, and Robin Sequence [RS]) and speech outcome at 5 years of age for children born with a cleft palate ± lip (CP ± L). Participants : 3157 Children (1426 female:1731 male) with a nonsyndromic CP ± L, born between 2006 and 2014 in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Outcome Measure : Perceptual speech analysis utilized the Cleft Audit Protocol for Speech–Augmented (CAPS-A) rating and UK National Speech Outcome Standards: Speech Standard 1 (SS1)—speech within the normal range, SS2a—no structurally related speech difficulties or history of speech surgery, and SS3—speech without significant cleft-related articulation difficulties. Results : Odds of achieving SS1 were lower among boys (aOR 0.771 [CI 0.660-0.901]), those with clefts involving the lip and palate (vs palate only) (UCLP—aOR 0.719 [CI 0.591-0.875]; BCLP—aOR 0.360 [CI 0.279-0.463]), and clefts involving the hard palate (incomplete—aOR 0.701 [CI 0.540-0.909]; complete—aOR 0.393 [CI 0.308-0.501]). Similar relationships with these patient factors were observed for SS3. SS2 was affected by the extent of hard palate involvement (complete; aOR 0.449 [CI 0.348-0.580]). Although those with CP and RS were less likely to meet all 3 standards than those without RS, odds ratios were not significant when adjusting for sex and cleft extent. Conclusion : Sex, cleft type, and extent of hard palate involvement have a significant impact on speech outcome at 5 years of age. Incorporating these factors into risk-adjustment models for service-level outcome reporting is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although the United Kingdom (UK) cleft surgeons follow a similar training pathway, and cleft centers adhere to similar protocols regarding the timing of palate surgery and surgical technique, speech outcomes still vary between centers. Objective: To explore the training experiences of consultant cleft lip and palate (CL/P) surgeons, performing a Sommerlad radical intravelar veloplasty (IVVP) and their approach to teaching others. Design: An exploratory, qualitative approach was adopted to understand the views of UK cleft surgeons performing a Sommerlad radical IVVP and discuss what was important during training and upon qualifying as a consultant. Method: A semi-structured interview schedule was designed, interviews were conducted in-person or via videoconferencing, depending on preference and availability, with interested surgeons. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and checked for accuracy. Analysis involved inductive thematic analysis. Results: Fourteen cleft consultants from the UK participated (3F:11M). Seven of the consultants were trained in plastic surgery and four in maxillofacial surgery. Seven themes were identified from the thematic analysis. Three themes, namely Learning to perform palate repair, Teaching others to perform palate repair, and Ongoing learning as a consultant are discussed. Conclusions: Cleft palate repair is clearly a technically challenging procedure to learn and teach with the potential to cause harm if performed incorrectly. Positive changes have been made to improve exposure to palate surgery, encourage practice away from the patient, and increase supervised practical experience. The role of colleagues in providing mentorship and support appears invaluable. We provide some simple recommendations that may improve the training experience and ensure parity for all trainees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There may be many reasons for delays to primary cleft surgery. Our aim was to investigate the age of children undergoing primary cleft lip or primary cleft palate repair in 5 cleft centers within the United Kingdom. Identify the reasons for delayed primary cleft lip repair (beyond 6 months) and delayed primary palate repair (beyond 13 months). Identify children who had a cleft lip and/or palate (CL±P) that was intentionally unrepaired and the reasons for this. Methods: A retrospective, multicenter review of patients born with a CL±P between December 1, 2012, and December 31, 2016. Three regional cleft centers, comprising of 5 cleft administrative units in the United Kingdom participated. Results: In all, 1826 patients with CL±P were identified. Of them, 120 patients had delayed lip repair, outside the expected standard of 183 days. And, 178 patients in total had delayed palate repair, outside the expected standard of 396 days. Twenty (1%) patients had an unrepaired cleft palate. Conclusions: This large retrospective review highlights variations between centers regarding the timing of lip and palate surgery and details the reasons stated for delayed primary surgery. A small number of patients with an unrepaired cleft palate were identified. All had complex medical problems or comorbidities listed as a reason for the decision not to operate and 50% had a syndromic diagnosis. The number of patients receiving delayed surgery due to comorbidities, being underweight or prematurity, highlights the importance of the cleft specialist nurse and pediatrician within the cleft multidisciplinary team. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Identification of patient factors influencing velopharyngeal function for speech following initial cleft palate repair., Design: A literature search of relevant databases from inception until 2018 was performed using medical subject headings and keywords related to cleft palate, palatoplasty and speech assessment. Following three stage screening data extraction was performed., Setting: Systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant literature., Patients/participants: Three hundred and eighty-three studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising data on 47 658 participants., Interventions: Individuals undergoing initial palatoplasty., Main Outcome Measures: Studies including participants undergoing initial cleft palate repair where the frequency of secondary speech surgery and/or velopharyngeal function for speech was recorded., Results: Patient factors reported included cleft phenotype (95% studies), biological sex (64%), syndrome diagnosis (44%), hearing loss (28%), developmental delay (16%), Robin Sequence (16%) and 22q11.2 microdeletion syndrome (11%). Meta-analysis provided strong evidence that rates of secondary surgery and velopharyngeal dysfunction varied according to cleft phenotype (Veau I best outcomes, Veau IV worst outcomes), Robin Sequence and syndrome diagnosis. There was no evidence that biological sex was associated with worse outcomes. Many studies were poor quality with minimal follow-up., Conclusions: Meta-analysis demonstrated the association of certain patient factors with speech outcome, however the quality of the evidence was low. Uniform, prospective, multi-centre documentation of preoperative characteristics and speech outcomes is required to characterise risk factors for post-palatoplasty velopharyngeal insufficiency for speech., Systematic Review Registration: Registered with PROSPERO CRD42017051624., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Objective: An overview of the literature relating to the sidedness of unilateral cleft lip with or without cleft palate to map current knowledge on the cause and impact of directional asymmetry., Design: Scoping review with a systematic search of Medline and Embase from inception to May 2023., Patients, Participants: Humans born with a left or right unilateral cleft lip with or without a cleft palate., Main Outcome Measures: Cleft sidedness as a co-occurrence, an outcome or an exposure., Results: Forty studies were eligible for inclusion and confirmed the predilection for the occurrence of left sided cleft lips; 12 studies reported cleft sidedness co-occurring with another phenotype, 11 studies report sidedness as an outcome and 17 studies as an exposure. Phenotypes which were reported to co-occur with either left or right sided clefts included congenital dental anomalies, handedness and additional congenital anomalies. Variables investigated as a potential cause of left or right sided clefts as an outcome included chromosomal anomalies, genetic variants and environmental factors. Outcomes investigated in relation to cleft sidedness as an exposure included facial anatomical features, facial growth, educational attainment, functional and psychological characteristics. More studies showed worse outcomes in right sided clefts versus left sided clefts than vice versa, although studies were inconsistent, and a quality assessment was not performed., Conclusions: The field of cleft sidedness research is expanding and there are promising early findings to differentiate cause and outcome by sidedness of the cleft., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

To investigate the relationship between patient-related factors (sex, cleft type, cleft extent, and Robin Sequence [RS]) and speech outcome at 5 years of age for children born with a cleft palate ±  lip (CP ± L)., 3157 Children (1426 female:1731 male) with a nonsyndromic CP ± L, born between 2006 and 2014 in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland., Perceptual speech analysis utilized the Cleft Audit Protocol for Speech-Augmented (CAPS-A) rating and UK National Speech Outcome Standards: Speech Standard 1 (SS1)-speech within the normal range, SS2a-no structurally related speech difficulties or history of speech surgery, and SS3-speech without significant cleft-related articulation difficulties., Odds of achieving SS1 were lower among boys (aOR 0.771 [CI 0.660-0.901]), those with clefts involving the lip and palate (vs palate only) (UCLP-aOR 0.719 [CI 0.591-0.875]; BCLP-aOR 0.360 [CI 0.279-0.463]), and clefts involving the hard palate (incomplete-aOR 0.701 [CI 0.540-0.909]; complete-aOR 0.393 [CI 0.308-0.501]). Similar relationships with these patient factors were observed for SS3. SS2 was affected by the extent of hard palate involvement (complete; aOR 0.449 [CI 0.348-0.580]). Although those with CP and RS were less likely to meet all 3 standards than those without RS, odds ratios were not significant when adjusting for sex and cleft extent., Sex, cleft type, and extent of hard palate involvement have a significant impact on speech outcome at 5 years of age. Incorporating these factors into risk-adjustment models for service-level outcome reporting is recommended., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Objective: To quantify differences in number and timing of first primary cleft lip and palate (CLP) repair procedures during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic (1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021; 2020/2021) compared with the preceding year (1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020; 2019/2021)., Design: National observational study of administrative hospital data., Setting: National Health Service hospitals in England., Study Population: Children <5 years undergoing primary repair for an orofacial cleft Population Consensus and Surveys Classification of Interventions and Procedures-fourth revisions (OPCS-4) codes F031, F291)., Main Exposure: Procedure date (2020/2021 vs 2019/2020)., Main Outcomes: Numbers and timing (age in months) of first primary CLP procedures., Results: 1716 CLP primary repair procedures were included in the analysis. In 2020/2021, 774 CLP procedures were carried out compared with 942 in 2019/2020, a reduction of 17.8% (95% CI 9.5% to 25.4%). The reduction varied over time in 2020/2021, with no surgeries at all during the first 2 months (April and May 2020). Compared with 2019/2020, first primary lip repair procedures performed in 2020/2021 were delayed by 1.6 months on average (95% CI 0.9 to 2.2 months). Delays in primary palate repairs were smaller on average but varied across the nine geographical regions., Conclusion: There were significant reductions in the number and delays in timing of first primary CLP repair procedures in England during the first year of the pandemic, which may affect long-term outcomes., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Although the United Kingdom (UK) cleft surgeons follow a similar training pathway, and cleft centers adhere to similar protocols regarding the timing of palate surgery and surgical technique, speech outcomes still vary between centers., Objective: To explore the training experiences of consultant cleft lip and palate (CL/P) surgeons, performing a Sommerlad radical intravelar veloplasty (IVVP) and their approach to teaching others., Design: An exploratory, qualitative approach was adopted to understand the views of UK cleft surgeons performing a Sommerlad radical IVVP and discuss what was important during training and upon qualifying as a consultant., Method: A semi-structured interview schedule was designed, interviews were conducted in-person or via videoconferencing, depending on preference and availability, with interested surgeons. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and checked for accuracy. Analysis involved inductive thematic analysis., Results: Fourteen cleft consultants from the UK participated (3F:11M). Seven of the consultants were trained in plastic surgery and four in maxillofacial surgery. Seven themes were identified from the thematic analysis. Three themes, namely Learning to perform palate repair, Teaching others to perform palate repair, and Ongoing learning as a consultant are discussed., Conclusions: Cleft palate repair is clearly a technically challenging procedure to learn and teach with the potential to cause harm if performed incorrectly. Positive changes have been made to improve exposure to palate surgery, encourage practice away from the patient, and increase supervised practical experience. The role of colleagues in providing mentorship and support appears invaluable. We provide some simple recommendations that may improve the training experience and ensure parity for all trainees.

Background: There may be many reasons for delays to primary cleft surgery. Our aim was to investigate the age of children undergoing primary cleft lip or primary cleft palate repair in 5 cleft centers within the United Kingdom. Identify the reasons for delayed primary cleft lip repair (beyond 6 months) and delayed primary palate repair (beyond 13 months). Identify children who had a cleft lip and/or palate (CL±P) that was intentionally unrepaired and the reasons for this., Methods: A retrospective, multicenter review of patients born with a CL±P between December 1, 2012, and December 31, 2016. Three regional cleft centers, comprising of 5 cleft administrative units in the United Kingdom participated., Results: In all, 1826 patients with CL±P were identified. Of them, 120 patients had delayed lip repair, outside the expected standard of 183 days. And, 178 patients in total had delayed palate repair, outside the expected standard of 396 days. Twenty (1%) patients had an unrepaired cleft palate., Conclusions: This large retrospective review highlights variations between centers regarding the timing of lip and palate surgery and details the reasons stated for delayed primary surgery. A small number of patients with an unrepaired cleft palate were identified. All had complex medical problems or comorbidities listed as a reason for the decision not to operate and 50% had a syndromic diagnosis. The number of patients receiving delayed surgery due to comorbidities, being underweight or prematurity, highlights the importance of the cleft specialist nurse and pediatrician within the cleft multidisciplinary team.