Chee-Williams, Jessica L.

This clinical case study describes the velopharyngeal anatomy and physiology in a patient who presented with SATB2-associated syndrome (SAS) and velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) in the absence of an overt cleft palate. The clinical presentation, treatment, outcome, and the contribution of anatomical findings from MRI to surgical treatment planning for this rare genetic disorder, SAS, are described. This case study contributes to our current understanding of the anatomy and physiology of the velopharyngeal mechanism in an individual born with SAS and non-cleft VPI. It also details the changes following bilateral buccal myomucosal flaps in this patient.

Background Non-sedated MRI is gaining traction in clinical settings for visualization of the velopharynx in children with velopharyngeal insufficiency. However, the behavioral adaptation and training aspects that are essential for successful pediatric MRI have received limited attention. Solution We outline a program of behavioral modifications combined with patient education and provider training that has led to high success rates for non-sedated velopharyngeal MRI in children.

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.