Palate re-repair has been shown to be effective in treating VPI following cleft palate repair, both in patients who have not had an intravelar veloplasty and those who have had a previous attempt at muscle dissection and retropositioning. Palate re-repair has a lower morbidity and is more physiological than a pharyngoplasty or pharyngeal flap.

Objective :  (1) To examine the evidence for the effectiveness of differences in timing and type of speech and language therapy for children with cleft palate with or without a cleft lip and (2) to identify types of interventions assessed. Design :  Nine databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, were searched between inception and March 2011 to identify published articles relating to speech and language therapy for children with cleft palate with or without cleft lip. Studies that included at least 10 participants and reported outcome measures for speech and/or language measures were included. Studies where the experimental group had less than 90% of children with cleft palate with or without cleft lip were excluded. Two reviewers independently completed inclusion assessment, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment for all studies identified. Results :  A total of 17 papers were evaluated: six randomized control trials and 11 observational studies. Studies varied widely on risk of bias, intervention used, and outcome measures reported. None of the studies had a low risk of bias. In terms of intervention approaches, seven studies evaluated linguistic approaches and 10 evaluated motor approaches. Outcomes measures did not support either approach over the other, and based on data reported it was difficult to ascertain which approach is more effective for children with cleft palate with or without cleft lip. Conclusions :  The review found little evidence to support any specific intervention. Key uncertainties need to be identified and adequately powered, methodologically rigorous studies conducted to provide a secure evidence base for speech-language therapy practice in children with cleft palate with or without cleft lip.

This paper highlights the poor outcomes for the fragmented cleft care in the United Kingdom, compared with European centers. There is an urgent need for a review of structure, organization, and training.

No abstract

Objective: To investigate the effect of maxillary osteotomy on velopharyngeal function in cleft lip and palate (CLP) using instrumental measures. Design: A prospective study. Participants: A consecutive series of 20 patients with CLP undergoing maxillary osteotomy by a single surgeon were seen at 0 to 3 months presurgery (T1), 3 months (T2), and 12 months (T3) post-surgery. Interventions: Nasalance was measured on the Nasometer II 6400. For videofluoroscopy and nasendoscopy data, visual perceptual ratings, for example, palatal lift angle (PLAn), and quantitative ratiometric measurements, for example, closure ratio (CRa), were made using a validated methodology and computer software. Reliability studies were undertaken for all instrumental measures. Main Outcome Measures: Repeated measures analysis of variance (with time at 3 levels) for nasalance and each velar parameter. Planned comparisons across pairs of time points (T1-T2, T1-T3, and T2-T3) including effect sizes. Results: A significant difference over time was found for nasalance ( P = .001) and planned comparisons across pairs of time points were significant between T1 and T2 ( P = .008), T1 and T3 ( P = .002), but not between T2 and T3 ( P = .459) providing evidence that maxillary osteotomy can impact on nasalance adversely and that the changes seen are permanent and stable. There were also significant differences over time for PLAn ( P = .012) and CRa ( P = −.059) and planned comparisons for both velar parameters reflected similar findings to those of nasalance. Conclusions: Maxillary osteotomy can adversely affect velopharyngeal function in patients with CLP. The study provides evidence for a much earlier post-surgery review even as early as 3 months after surgery.

A rigorous evaluation of cleft care in the United Kingdom reveals disappointing outcomes.

No abstract

Nineteen percent of 5-year-olds and 4% of 12-year-olds were judged to be impossible to understand or just intelligible to strangers. Thirty-four percent of 5-year-olds and 17% of 12-year-olds had at least one serious error of consonant production. Eighteen percent of 5-year-olds and 12-year-olds had consistent hypernasality of mild, moderate, or severe degree. Approximately two-thirds of both age groups had undergone speech therapy.