| Literature DB >> 31022142 |
Huilin Xu1,2, Qinggao Song1, Yali Zou1, Wei He1, Fang Wang1.
Abstract
The aim of the present study is to test the feasibility of modified Z-plasty palatoplasty for cleft palate repair in surgeries and provide a new surgical method. Forty cleft palate patients were selected as participants and divided into 2 groups in random. Twenty patients in the experiment group were treated by modified Z-plasty palatoplasty while the other 20 patients in the control group by double opposing Z-plasty and Sommerlad palatoplasty. By evaluating and observing postoperative velopharyngeal movement, speech intelligibility, nasal leaking, analysis of CSL (Computer Structure Language) and X-ray velopharyngeal lateral radiographs, Modified Z-plasty palatoplasty achieved better results than traditional operation. Satisfactory linguistic effects on incomplete cleft palate can be observed after modified Z-plasty palatoplasty treatment. So this method may be used as a clinical choice.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31022142 PMCID: PMC6716558 DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000005546
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Craniofac Surg ISSN: 1049-2275 Impact factor: 1.046
FIGURE 1Schematic diagram of modified Z-plasty palatoplasty for cleft palate repair. ((A) The levator muscle bundle was attached to the nasal layer, and closed nasal layer was left intent while not dissected as in a traditional furlow Z-plasty. (B) Moving tissue flaps with suture make the broken ends close together).
FIGURE 2Schematic diagram of modified Z-plasty palatoplasty for cleft palate repair (A) Before operation incision. (B) The oral mucosal flaps have been raised prior to commencing the muscle dissection and the muscle complex reconstruction. Note the 1 in the circle which denotes the levator muscle of palatine velum. (C) Sutured oral mucosa.
FIGURE 3The sketch map of cephalometric landmarks.
Evaluation of Speech Intelligibility (Case [%])
| Group | Articulate Patients Before Operation | Articulate Patients After Operation |
| Group A | 5 (25.0%) | 17 (85.0%) |
| Group B | 6 (30.0%) | 16 (80.0%) |
| χ2 | 0.625 | 4.286 |
| 0.429 | 0.038 |
*P < 0.05.
Evaluation of Postoperative Nasal Resonance (Case)
| Group | Grade 0 | Grade 1 | Grade 2 | Grade3 | ||
| Group A | 13 | 4 | 2 | 1 | ||
| Group B | 8 | 5 | 3 | 4 | −2.331 | 0.02 |
*P < 0.05.
Assessment of Postoperative Nasal Air Leakage
| Group | Grade 0 | Grade 1 | Grade 2 | Z | |
| Group A | 10 | 8 | 2 | ||
| Group B | 7 | 9 | 4 | −2.434 | 0.015 |
*P < 0.05.
Evaluation of Lateral Cephalometric Pharyngeal Radiographs (Case [%])
| Group | Number of Patients of Normal Velopharyngeal Closure | Normal Rate (%) | |
| Group A | 17 | 85 | 0.022 |
| Group B | 14 | 70 |
*P < 0.05.
Comparative Analysis of Resonance Peak Values of /i/ in the Experimental Group and the Control Group (Hz, x ± s)
| F1 | F2 | F3 | ||||
| Group | Preoperative Value | Postoperative Value | Preoperative Value | Postoperative Value | Preoperative Value | Postoperative Value |
| Group A | 355.75 ± 83.38 | 334.60 ± 62.74 | 1072.35 ± 641.14 | 1865.40 ± 847.38 | 1920.20 ± 947.37 | 2410.70 ± 908.90 |
| Group B | 354.20 ± 94.36 | 373.35 ± 74.04 | 1066.50 ± 551.18 | 1682.05 ± 916.57 | 1958.90 ± 852.57 | 2138.80 ± 982.35 |
Comparative Analysis of Resonance Peak Values of /a/ in the Experimental Group and the Control Group (Hz, x ± s)
| F1 | F2 | F3 | ||||
| Group | Preoperative Value | Postoperative Value | Preoperative Value | Postoperative Value | Preoperative Value | Postoperative Value |
| Group A | 604.15 ± 348.36 | 659.30 ± 360.57 | 1198.05 ± 534.32 | 1720.45 ± 354.62 | 1766.95 ± 740.94 | 2464.10 ± 717.69 |
| Group B | 596.75 ± 220.73 | 599.35 ± 307.60 | 1133.20 ± 260.08 | 1689.70 ± 464.73 | 1996.50 ± 813.16 | 2058.95 ± 721.97 |