Citations

Obstructive sleep disordered breathing (oSDB), including obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), frequently coexists with cleft lip and palate, velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI), and other craniofacial conditions. Moreover, oSDB is often a key factor in decisions for primary or revision cleft palate or velpharyngeal surgery. Due to the frequency with which cleft and craniofacial team members care for patients with oSDB, this article provides a primer for OSA evaluation and management for team members. oSDB can have a significant impact on quality of life, health outcomes, surgical planning, and global development for all children, especially those with cleft and craniofacial conditions. In this review, oSDB screening and testing methods are discussed, including interpretation of OSA testing. Considerations for specific craniofacial populations are included, such as those with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome and Pierre-Robin sequence. The impact of VPI surgery on OSA is discussed. Finally, approaches to OSA management are reviewed, with attention to how standard management approaches may shift in children with cleft and craniofacial conditions. As awareness of oSDB in children has increased, including increased access to diagnostic testing, studies have shown certain patient populations are more likely to have OSA and would benefit from screening. Children with craniofacial conditions, including cleft palate and velopharyngeal insufficiency, have altered risk profiles which impact management considerations for OSA. This article provides an introduction to key concepts in oSDB screening, diagnositics, and management, which can be valuable for any professional assisting in the care of children with a cleft or craniofacial condition.

Background: Surgeons pursuing improvement in the aesthetic outcomes of their cleft lip repairs may benefit from a granular scale evaluating individual objectives of the repair. Methods: A working group of 9 surgeons convened to develop an assessment scale for nasolabial aesthetics after unilateral cleft lip repair. The group identified objectives of the repair that could be evaluated using two-dimensional facial photographs. Scale items were developed to appraise success or failure in achieving each objective. Scale items were iteratively tested and refined. The scale was subsequently implemented as part of a Continuing Medical Education course that included self-evaluation and peer-to-peer education, culminating in the formation of individual plans for improvement. Results: Twelve distinct objectives of unilateral cleft lip repair were identified, of which 10 could be evaluated using photographs routinely obtained in clinical practice. A comprehensive scale was developed, incorporating these 10 objectives. Each scale item takes the form of a binary (yes/no) question evaluating a specific aesthetic concept, with accompanying reference images. Intrarater reliability for each item ranged from moderate to substantial (kappa value, 0.57 to 0.81). Interrater reliability ranged from fair to substantial (kappa value, 0.27 to 0.81). When implemented in a Continuing Medical Education course, the scale enabled surgeons to identify specific opportunities for improvement in their repair and specific surgical maneuvers to adopt in pursuit of these improvements. Conclusions: A new scale for evaluating outcomes of unilateral cleft lip repair is presented. The scale provides specific, actionable evaluations for individual objectives of the repair.

Objective Surgical treatment of velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) includes a wide array of procedures. The purpose of this study was to develop a classification for VPI procedures and to describe variations in how they are performed. Design/participants/setting/outcomes: We completed an in-depth review of the literature to develop a preliminary schema that encompassed existing VPI procedures. Forty-one cleft surgeons from twelve hospitals across the USA and Canada reviewed the schema and either confirmed that it encompassed all VPI procedures they performed or requested additions. Two surgeons then observed the conduct of the procedures by surgeons at each hospital. Standardized reports were completed with each visit to further explore the literature, refine the schema, and delineate the common and unique aspects of each surgeon's technique. Results Procedures were divided into three groups: palate-based surgery; pharynx-based surgery; and augmentation. Palate-based operations included straight line mucosal incision with intravelar veloplasty, double-opposing Z-plasty, and palate lengthening with buccal myomucosal flaps. Many surgeons blended maneuvers from these three techniques, so a more descriptive schema was developed classifying the maneuvers employed on the oral mucosa, nasal mucosa, and muscle. Pharynx-based surgery included pharyngeal flap and sphincter pharyngoplasty, with variations in design for each. Augmentation procedures included palate and posterior wall augmentation. Conclusions A comprehensive schema for VPI procedures was developed incorporating intentional adaptations in technique. There was substantial variation amongst surgeons in how each procedure was performed. The schema may enable more specific evaluations of surgical outcomes and exploration of the mechanisms through which these procedures improve speech.

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.

Objective: To provide an inventory of oronasal fistula repair techniques alongside expert commentary on which techniques are appropriate for each fistula type. Design: A 4-stage approach was used to develop a consensus on surgical techniques available for fistula repair: (1) in-person discussion of oronasal fistula cases among cleft surgeons, (2) development of a schema for fistula management using transcripts of the in-person case discussion, (3) evaluation of the preliminary schema via a web-based survey of additional cleft surgeons, and (4) revision of the management schema using survey responses. Participants: Six cleft surgeons participated in the in-person case discussion. Eleven additional surgeons participated in the web-based survey. Participants had diverse training experiences, having completed residency and fellowship at 20 different hospitals. Results: A schema for fistula management was developed, organized by fistula location. The schema catalogues all viable approaches for each location. For fistulae involving the soft palate, the schema stresses the importance of evaluating for velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) and incorporating VPI management into fistula repair. For fistulae involving the hard palate, the schema separately enumerates the techniques available for nasal lining repair and for oral lining repair in each region. The schema also catalogues the diversity of approaches to lingual- and labioalveolar fistula, including variation in timing, orthodontic preparation, and simultaneous alveolar bone grafting. Conclusions: This study employed consensus methods to create a comprehensive inventory of available fistula repair techniques and to identify preferential techniques among a diverse group of surgeons.