Mark R Rowe1, Linda L D'Antonio. 1. Division of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, Loma Linda University and Children's Hospital, Loma Linda, CA 92354, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Otolaryngologists are increasingly being called upon to assist in the differential diagnosis of velopharyngeal valving disorders for speech, assisting in treatment planning and the assessment of treatment outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: The most commonly used methods for direct visualization of velopharyngeal function remain nasendoscopy and videofluoroscopy. Literature supporting the use of either nasendoscopy followed by videofluoroscopy or the reverse can be found. Several studies also suggest that magnetic resonance imaging can make important contributions to the evaluation of velopharyngeal anatomy and function. The routine use of magnetic resonance imaging for evaluating the velopharynx is neither practical nor probable at the present time. Although magnetic resonance imaging may be as effective as videofluoroscopy or nasendoscopy, the cost of magnetic resonance imaging and the radiation exposure of videofluoroscopy will likely dictate that nasendoscopy continues to be the most common technique for evaluating velopharyngeal function during speech. Several recent studies have documented the use of instrumental assessment of velopharyngeal function for assigning patients to a given surgical procedure, predicting surgical success or complications, and evaluating treatment outcomes. SUMMARY: There are still discussions and conflicting results regarding the best method for evaluating velopharyngeal function. Opinions conflict regarding the various methods, which suggests that no single method is best. The decision regarding the most appropriate evaluation protocol should be guided by the information that the clinician is attempting to obtain and the relative benefits and risks of each method. Increasingly, these evaluation methods are used by the otolaryngologist to assist in the differential diagnosis of velopharyngeal valving disorders, the assignment of patients to various treatment options, and the evaluation of treatment outcomes.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Otolaryngologists are increasingly being called upon to assist in the differential diagnosis of velopharyngeal valving disorders for speech, assisting in treatment planning and the assessment of treatment outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: The most commonly used methods for direct visualization of velopharyngeal function remain nasendoscopy and videofluoroscopy. Literature supporting the use of either nasendoscopy followed by videofluoroscopy or the reverse can be found. Several studies also suggest that magnetic resonance imaging can make important contributions to the evaluation of velopharyngeal anatomy and function. The routine use of magnetic resonance imaging for evaluating the velopharynx is neither practical nor probable at the present time. Although magnetic resonance imaging may be as effective as videofluoroscopy or nasendoscopy, the cost of magnetic resonance imaging and the radiation exposure of videofluoroscopy will likely dictate that nasendoscopy continues to be the most common technique for evaluating velopharyngeal function during speech. Several recent studies have documented the use of instrumental assessment of velopharyngeal function for assigning patients to a given surgical procedure, predicting surgical success or complications, and evaluating treatment outcomes. SUMMARY: There are still discussions and conflicting results regarding the best method for evaluating velopharyngeal function. Opinions conflict regarding the various methods, which suggests that no single method is best. The decision regarding the most appropriate evaluation protocol should be guided by the information that the clinician is attempting to obtain and the relative benefits and risks of each method. Increasingly, these evaluation methods are used by the otolaryngologist to assist in the differential diagnosis of velopharyngeal valving disorders, the assignment of patients to various treatment options, and the evaluation of treatment outcomes.
Authors: C T Arendt; K Eichler; M G Mack; D Leithner; S Zhang; K T Block; Y Berdan; R Sader; J L Wichmann; T Gruber-Rouh; T J Vogl; M C Hoelter Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 5.315