Search

Objective: Palatal fistulas after palatoplasty could pose difficulties for both patients and surgeons. Numerous surgical approaches are available to treat palatal fistulas. In this manuscript, we investigate surgical treatment options for palatal fistula repair looking at the different anatomical locations, and we create a summary of surgical approaches to facilitate the decision-making process for palatal fistulae repair., Design: In this cross-sectional survey, nine anonymized patient cases with palatal fistulae that differed in severity and anatomical location were presented to participants from the International Cleft Master Course in Amsterdam about "Palatal Fistulas". Participants were invited to participate in this survey. A total of 141 participants reported their preferred surgical treatment options for fistula repair at different anatomical locations., Results: We created different options for fistula treatment, catalogued by fistula location. This overview gives the surgeon possible approaches for each location. If the soft palate is involved, this overview underscores the importance of including velopharyngeal insufficiency management into the fistula repair. For hard palate involvement, our overview lists techniques available for nasal lining repair and for oral lining repair in each region., Conclusions: We provide a comprehensive overview of potential surgical approaches to repair palatal fistulae. This inventory of techniques is grouped per location to support surgeons in their decision-making process when confronted with a palatal fistula., 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.

Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate how cleft surgeons classify palatal fistulas. We focused on three different anatomical locations (ie, hard palate, soft palate, junction hard/soft palate) to analyze agreement/disagreement at various anatomical locations., Design: Cross-sectional survey study., Participants: Participants in an international webinar that focused on palatal fistula treatment were included., Intervention: Participants were presented with a survey pre- and post-webinar., Main Outcomes: Frequency of used classification systems for classifying oronasal fistulas and the inter-rater reliability of the Pittsburgh classification system., Results: A total of 141 participants completed the questionnaires prior to the webinar and 109 participants completed the survey after the webinar. In total, four classification systems were used (ie, Pittsburgh, Pakistan Comprehensive Fistula Classification [PCFC], anatomical and 'other'). The Pittsburgh classification was the most commonly used system in all cases. However, Pittsburgh inter-rater reliability was low (κ = 0.136 pre-webinar, and κ = 0.174 post-webinar). Surprisingly, a substantial shift was observed from the anatomical to Pittsburgh classification after the webinar, indicating increased awareness of the usability of the Pittsburgh classification system., Conclusions: This study demonstrates a large heterogeneity with regards to the classification of cleft palate fistulas. Interestingly, a shift was observed from the anatomical to Pittsburgh classification after the webinar. However, the inter-rater reliability for using the Pittsburgh classification was low. Classifying palatal fistulas in a homogenous fashion could enhance comparison of primary palate repair and could improve treatment of palatal fistulas., 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.