Weidler, Erica M.

Objective To explore current approaches to evaluation and treatment decision-making for velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) following cleft palate repair. Design Cross-sectional, qualitative study. Setting/participants Participants included 28 surgeons and 17 speech-language pathologists (SLPs) from 12 cleft teams in the United States and Canada. Interventions Semi-structured, qualitative interviews were conducted exploring participants’ current approaches to VPI evaluation and treatment decision-making. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results Participants viewed VPI evaluation as a joint effort of surgeons and SLPs. SLPs were entrusted to conduct formal speech evaluations. All teams completed a perceptual evaluation of speech resonance that included spontaneous speech and phrase repetition. Teams varied in their use of patient questionnaires and nasometry. Most teams performed nasoendoscopy as part of their evaluation, although providers noted limited cooperation in younger children and those with developmental delay. Treatment decision-making occurred either as a joint effort between the evaluating surgeon and SLP or exclusively by the surgeon. Most surgeons employed a personalized approach to treatment decision-making, with 19 distinct approaches described. Elements frequently considered in surgical procedure selection included velopharyngeal gap size and closure pattern as seen on nasoendoscopy. Providers were satisfied with their current approach, although most identified opportunities for improvement. Conclusions Cleft teams have individualized approaches to VPI evaluation and treatment decision-making, with the only common element being completion of a perceptual speech evaluation by an SLP. These findings suggest that efforts to implement new approaches will need to be customized to each team's current process.

Objective To present the design and methodology for an actively enrolling comparative effectiveness study of revision palatoplasty versus pharyngoplasty for the treatment of velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) Design Prospective observational multicenter study Setting Twelve hospitals across the United States and Canada Participants Individuals who are 3–23 years of age with a history of repaired cleft palate and a diagnosis of VPI, with a total enrollment target of 528 participants Interventions Revision palatoplasty and pharyngoplasty (either pharyngeal flap or sphincter pharyngoplasty), as selected for each participant by their treatment team Main Outcome Measure(s) The primary outcome is resolution of hypernasality, defined as the absence of consistent hypernasality as determined by blinded perceptual assessment of a standard speech sample recorded twelve months after surgery. The secondary outcome is incidence of new onset obstructive sleep apnea. Statistical analyses will use propensity score matching to control for demographics, medical history, preoperative severity of hypernasality, and preoperative imaging findings. Results Study recruitment began February 2021. As of September 2022, 148 participants are enrolled, and 78 have undergone VPI surgery. Enrollment is projected to continue into 2025. Collection of postoperative evaluations should be completed by the end of 2026, with dissemination of results soon thereafter. Conclusions Patients with VPI following cleft palate repair are being actively enrolled at sites across the US and Canada into a prospective observational study evaluating surgical outcomes. This study will be the largest and most comprehensive study of VPI surgery outcomes to date.

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.