Outcomes in Velopharyngeal Dysfunction Treatment: Comparing Two Approaches for Pharyngeal Flaps. Issue 8 (November 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rangwani, Shiva; Baylis, Adriane; Khansa, Ibrahim; Pearson, Gregory
• Is Part Of: Journal of craniofacial surgery. Volume 31:Issue 8(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-11
• Subjects: Craniofacial -- palate -- pharyngeal flap -- velopharyngeal dysfunction; Facial bones -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Skull -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Face -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; 617.52
• DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000006720
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1049-2275

Abstract

Abstract : Background: The most common surgical intervention to treat velopharyngeal dysfunction in the US is the posterior pharyngeal flap (PPF). In this retrospective study, the authors compare surgical and speech outcomes across 2 PPF surgical approaches: the palatal split (PS) and fish mouth (FM) techniques. Methods: An Institutional Review Board approved retrospective chart review was performed for PPF cases performed by a single surgeon between 2008 and 2016. Overall, 40 patients received the PS technique and 47 received the FM technique. Age at surgery, operative length, length of stay (LOS), revisional surgery, and pain medication administration were measured. Speech outcomes were measured based on the Universal Parameters for Reporting Speech Outcomes and included Speech Language Pathologist ratings of hypo- and hypernasality, speech acceptability, and audible nasal emission. Two sample t -tests and multivariable-mixed effects logistic regression were used to analyze the data. Results: Comparing the 2 groups (PS versus FM), there were statistically significant differences among the operative approaches across multiple measures: LOS (32.86 hours versus 26.20 hours, P = 0.01), acetaminophen use (1523.54 mg versus 805.74 mg, P = 0.01), revisional surgery rate (17.5% versus 2.10%, P = 0.02), and degree of postoperative hypernasality (0.61 versus 0.29, P = 0.03). Syndromic patients were more likely to receive the FM technique (PS: 15% versus FM: 29.8%; P = 0.05). The odds ratio for revision surgery with the FM technique was –2.32 (CI: –4.32 to –0.35, P = .04). Conclusions: In this study, the FM technique offered a shorter LOS, lower revision rate, less acetaminophen administration, and more favorable speech outcomes when compared to the PS technique. Abstract : Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text