These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Two Methods of Cleft Palate Repair in Patients With Complete Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate.
    Author: Rossell-Perry P.
    Journal: J Craniofac Surg; 2018 Sep; 29(6):1473-1479. PubMed ID: 30015742.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the surgical outcome between 2 patient groups with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate who underwent different types of palatoplasty. METHODS: This is a cohort study between 2 groups of patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate who were operated using different surgical techniques from 2008 to 2011. About 28 patients were operated using a primary lip nose repair with vomer flap for hard palate single-layer closure and delayed soft palate repair (modified Oslo protocol) and 32 patients were operated using our protocol in Lima. Data collection was accomplished by evaluation of symptomatic oronasal fistulas, presence of velopharyngeal insufficiency and evaluation of dental arch relationships (scored using the 5-year-olds' index). RESULTS: Our comparative study observed statistically significant differences between the 2 groups regarding the presence of oronasal fistulas and velopharyngeal insufficiency in favor of our palatoplasty technique. A statistically significant difference was not found in functional vestibular oronasal fistula development between the studied techniques for unilateral cleft palate repair. This comparative study did not observe significant differences in dental arch relationships between the studied techniques. CONCLUSION: In this study, better surgical outcome than modified Oslo protocol regarding oronasal fistulas and velopharyngeal insufficiency on patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate was observed. The results arising from this study do not provide evidence that one technique is enough to obtain better functional closure of the alveolar cleft and dental arch relationship at 5 years.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]