Authors: Chanchareonsook N, Whitehill TL, Samman N
Title: Speech outcome and velopharyngeal function in cleft palate: Comparison of Le Fort I maxillary osteotomy and distraction osteogenesis – Early results
Source: Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal 2007 44(1): 23-32
Year: 2007
Research Design: Non Randomised Controlled Trial
Rating Score: 04/10
This rating is confirmed
Eligibility specified - N
Random allocation - N
Concealed allocation - N
Baseline comparability - N
Blind subjects - N
Blind therapists - N
Blind assessors - N
Adequate follow-up - Y
Intention-to-treat analysis - Y
Between-group comparisons - Y
Point estimates and variability - Y

OBJECTIVE: To compare speech outcome and velopharyngeal (VP) status of subjects with repaired cleft palate who underwent either conventional Le Fort I osteotomy or maxillary distraction osteogenesis to correct maxillary hypoplasia. DESIGN: Prospective randomized study with blind assessment of speech outcome and VP status. SUBJECTS: Twenty-two subjects were randomized into conventional Le Fort I osteotomy and Le Fort I distraction groups. All were native Chinese (Cantonese) speakers. METHOD: Perceptual judgment of resonance and nasal emission, study of VP structures by nasoendoscopy, and instrumental measurement by nasometry. Assessments were performed preoperatively and at 3 months postoperatively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Assessment of VP closure, perceptual rating of hypernasality and nasal emission, nasalance, and amount of maxillary advancement. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in any of the outcome measures between the 10 subjects with conventional Le Fort I osteotomy and the 12 subjects with maxillary distraction: hypernasality (chi-square = 3.850, p = 0.221), nasal emission (chi-square = 0.687, p = 0.774), VP gap size (chi-square = 1.527, p = 0.635, and nasalance (f = -0.145, p = 0.886). There was no correlation between amount of maxillary advancement and any of the outcome measures (p = .05 for all). Changes in VP gap size and resonance are described. CONCLUSION: Results need to be interpreted with caution because of the small sample size and early follow-up. However, this study utilized an assessment protocol involving a variety of outcome measures and careful consideration of reliability factors, which can be a model for further and follow-up studies. © Allen Press Publishing Service

Access: Open Access