Cochrane · intervention · CD006703

Interventions for the management of submucous cleft palate

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2008 · Cochrane Library

Full textEvery question was extracted from the full review (methods and results), not only its Summary of Findings table.
Questions
8
current version
GRADE rated
0
No studies
4
Included studies
1
as reported
No studies 4 · 50%Ungraded 4 · 50%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.

Review question

ElementPlanned (methods)Found (results)
PopulationChildren or adolescents, 3 years or older, with an established diagnosis of velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) associated with submucous cleft palate; diagnosis made by a combination of perceptual speech assessment and objective evaluation (nasometry, videonasopharyngoscopy, multiview videofluoroscopy); all participants assessed for hearing ability (pure tone audiometry) and language development; participants with associated syndromic conditions excluded.Participants aged 4 to 7 years with submucous cleft palate associated velopharyngeal insufficiency, gender unspecified; single trial conducted in Mexico (n=72)
InterventionSurgical procedures, either against each other or no treatment, to correct velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) in submucous cleft palate (e.g. intravelar veloplasty, sphincter pharyngoplasty, pharyngeal flap, Furlow double-opposing Z-plasty).Minimal incision palatopharyngoplasty (MIPP) (n=37)
ComparisonAnother surgical procedure or no treatmentMIPP with additional individualised velopharyngeal surgery: pharyngeal flap (32) or sphincter pharyngoplasty (3) (n=35)
OutcomesPrimary: (1) perceptual speech assessment (articulation, hypernasality, hyponasality, mixed resonance, cul-de-sac resonance, nasal emission) by a professional speech-language therapist/pathologist; (2) instrumental assessment: (a) nasalance score by nasometry and pressure-flow measure, (b) videonasopharyngoscopy and multiview videofluoroscopy assessment of velopharyngeal gap size at rest and closure. Secondary: (1) quality of life (validated questionnaires); (2) self-esteem (validated questionnaires). Adverse effects: (1) failure of muscle fusion; (2) sleep apnoea or airway compromise; (3) unacceptable nasal resonance after repair.Residual post-operative velopharyngeal insufficiency (n=72); Complete closure of velopharyngeal sphincter (n=72); Post-operative velopharyngeal gap size during closure (n=63); Failure of muscle fusion (n=72); Obstructive sleep apnoea (n=72)
Study designsOnly randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs)1 double-blind RCT (Ysunza 2001), conducted in Mexico
TimingNot specified3 months post-operatively

Search date: 2007-03. Databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register; Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group Trials Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; ERIC; PsycINFO

Questions and results

Current version only

Minimal incision palatopharyngoplasty (MIPP) vs MIPP with additional individualised velopharyngeal surgery (pharyngeal flap or sphincter pharyngoplasty)

Population: Children or adolescents aged 3 years or older with velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) associated with non-syndromic submucous cleft palate
CD006703.PUB2 (current) · 8 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Quality of life (self or carer evaluated, validated questionnaires)
No data were available for this patient-reported outcome in the single included trial.0 studiesNo studies
Instrumental assessment: nasalance score (nasometry and pressure-flow measure)
Nasalance score by nasometry and pressure-flow measure: the single included trial (Ysunza 2001) provided no data for this outcome.0 studiesNo studies
Self-esteem (validated questionnaires)
No data were available for this patient-reported outcome in the single included trial.0 studiesNo studies
Instrumental assessment: velopharyngeal complete closure and gap size (videonasopharyngoscopy and multiview videofluoroscopy)
3 months post-operatively
Complete closure occurred in 32 (86%) of the participants in group 1 (MIPP) and in 31 (89%) in group 2, P > 0.05. After eliminating the nine patients with residual velopharyngeal insufficiency, the post-operative gap…1 study · 72 participantsUngraded
Adverse effect: failure of muscle fusion in the region of the cleft after surgery
There were no reports of failure of muscle fusion after surgery.1 study · 72 participantsUngraded
Adverse effect: unacceptable nasal resonance after repair
The trial report provided no information on this adverse event; no information on adverse events or serious complications was reported.0 studiesNo studies
Adverse effect: obstructive sleep apnoea or airway compromise
The investigators stated that none of the participants reported obstructive sleep apnoea after the interventions.1 study · 72 participantsUngraded
Perceptual speech assessment: residual post-operative velopharyngeal insufficiency
3 months post-operatively
Five (14%) of the participants in group 1 (MIPP) and four (11%) in group 2 had residual post-operative velopharyngeal insufficiency, P > 0.05. The report provided no details on post-operative speech assessment other…1 study · 72 participantsUngraded

Surgical procedure to correct velopharyngeal insufficiency (e.g. intravelar veloplasty, sphincter pharyngoplasty, pharyngeal flap, Furlow double-opposing Z-plasty) vs A different surgical procedure or no treatment

Population: Children or adolescents aged 3 years or older with velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) associated with non-syndromic submucous cleft palate
CD006703 · 1 question
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Outcome NR
Protocol (2007); planned comparison of surgical interventions to correct velopharyngeal insufficiency in submucous cleft palate; no results reported.0 studiesNo studies