No abstract

BackgroundNo consensus exists on the optimal treatment protocol for orofacial clefts or the optimal timing of cleft palate closure. This study investigated factors influencing speech outcomes after two-stage palate repair in adults with a non-syndromal complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP).MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis of adult patients with a UCLP who underwent two-stage palate closure and were treated at our tertiary cleft centre. Patients ≥17 years of age were invited for a final speech assessment. Their medical history was obtained from their medical files, and speech outcomes were assessed by a speech pathologist during the follow-up consultation.ResultsForty-eight patients were included in the analysis, with a mean age of 21 years (standard deviation, 3.4 years). Their mean age at the time of hard and soft palate closure was 3 years and 8.0 months, respectively. In 40% of the patients, a pharyngoplasty was performed. On a 5-point intelligibility scale, 84.4% received a score of 1 or 2; meaning that their speech was intelligible. We observed a significant correlation between intelligibility scores and the incidence of articulation errors (P<0.001). In total, 36% showed mild to moderate hypernasality during the speech assessment, and 11%–17% of the patients exhibited increased nasalance scores, assessed through nasometry.ConclusionsThe present study describes long-term speech outcomes after two-stage palatoplasty with hard palate closure at a mean age of 3 years old. We observed moderate long-term intelligibility scores, a relatively high incidence of persistent hypernasality, and a high pharyngoplasty incidence.

Objective: Developmental language delay (DLD) is one of the most common disabilities in childhood and can negatively affect a child's communication skills and academic and/or psychosocial development. To date, an increasing number of causative genes have been identified by diagnostic techniques like next generation sequencing. An early genetic diagnosis is important to properly prepare and counsel children and parents for possible future difficulties. Despite this, genetic assessment is usually not part of a standardized diagnostic set in children with developmental language delay. In this study, we aim to assess the diagnostic outcomes of children primarily assessed for speech and language delay who were subsequently referred for genetic etiological assessment.Methods: Medical records of children referred to the department of Otorhinolaryngology of the Wilhelmina Children's Hospital for diagnostic work-up for a suspected speech and language delay between June 2011 and December 2018 who were additionally referred to a geneticist were evaluated. Study parameters concerning medical history, behavioral problems, language development, intelligence, and hearing were recorded. Outcomes of genetic analysis were evaluated.Results: A total of 127 patients were diagnosed with a developmental language delay. Genetic analysis was conducted in 119 out of 127 patients with a language delay and eligible for this study. The median time between initial speech and language assessment and the first genetic consultation was 10 months (IQR 5.0–23.0). In 34 out of 127 patients a causative genetic diagnosis was found to explain their DLD.Conclusion: In approximately a quarter of the patients (26.8%) diagnosed with developmental language delay, a causative genetic diagnosis was confirmed. This demonstrates the opportunity to identify an underlying genetic etiology in children with developmental language delay. However, in order to optimize the diagnostic process and clinical care for these children, two important research gaps need to be addressed. First, research should focus on assessing the clinical impact and effect on treatment outcomes of a genetic diagnosis. Secondly, it is important to recognize for which children genetic testing is most beneficial.

Significant treatment variation exists in the Netherlands between teams treating patients with cleft lip, alveolus, and/or palate, resulting in a confusing and undesirable situation for patients, parents, and practitioners. Therefore, to optimize cleft care, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) were developed. The aim of this report is to describe CPG development, share the main recommendations, and indicate knowledge gaps regarding cleft care. Together with patients and parents, a multidisciplinary working group of representatives from all relevant disciplines assisted by two experienced epidemiologists identified the topics to be addressed in the CPGs. Searching the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases identified 5157 articles, 60 of which remained after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria. We rated the quality of the evidence from moderate to very low. The working group formulated 71 recommendations regarding genetic testing, feeding, lip and palate closure, hearing, hypernasality, bone grafting, orthodontics, psychosocial guidance, dentistry, osteotomy versus distraction, and rhinoplasty. The final CPGs were obtained after review by all stakeholders and allow cleft teams to base their treatment on current knowledge. With high-quality evidence lacking, the need for additional high-quality studies has become apparent.

Purpose: Young children with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11DS) often have impaired language development and poor speech intelligibility. Here, we report a comprehensive overview of standardized language assessment in a relatively large sample of preschool-aged children with 22q11DS. We furthermore explored whether speech ability explained variability in language skills. Method: Forty-four monolingual Dutch preschoolers (3–6 years) with a confirmed genetic 22q11DS diagnosis participated in this prospective cohort study. Standardized tests (Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals Preschool-2-NL and Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III-NL) were administered. Speech intelligibility was rated by two expert speech and language therapists using a standardized procedure. Results: Most children had impaired language skills across all tested domains. The composite score for expressive language was significantly lower than that for receptive language, but the two were strongly correlated. Only small differences between the mean scores on the various subtests were observed, with the lowest scores for expressive morphosyntactic skills. Language scores showed a moderate positive relation with speech intelligibility, but language abilities varied greatly among the children with intelligible speech. Conclusions: We show that the majority of preschool children with 22q11DS have a broad range of language problems. Other than the relatively larger impairment in expressive than in receptive language skills, our results do not show a clearly delineated language profile. As many of the children with intelligible speech still had below-average language scores, we highlight that language problems require a broad assessment and care in all young children with 22q11DS. Future research using spontaneous language and detailed speech analysis is recommended, to provide more in-depth understanding of children's language profile and the relationship between speech and language in 22q11DS.