Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Systematic review and meta-analysis of speech outcome among different surgical techniques post cleft palate repair: Furlow against other  palatoplasty techniques

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
European Journal of Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

A cleft palate is a congenital condition in which the palate has an opening that can be on either one or both sides of the roof of the mouth and vary in size. Different surgical techniques are used to correct cleft palate. The choice of surgical approach for cleft palate repair relies on the nature and size of the aperture as well as the surgeon’s experience and preferences. The current systematic review and meta-analysis’s main goal was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of various cleft palate surgical procedures.

Methods

The databases of PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar were searched for English papers having online complete texts. Preclinical studies, abstracts, theses, editorials, commentaries, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and evidence synthesis were all disregarded. A prevalence meta-analysis and subgroup analysis were carried out with the use of Stata and the Meta XL statistical software.

Results

Medline, Google Scholar, and PubMed were among the databases searched. A first search revealed 3059 studies. Only 2562 studies remained after duplicates were eliminated. The abstracts and titles of the articles were skimmed. 266 papers were examined after being cut based on predetermined eligibility criteria. Finally, 36 articles were found to have successfully met the eligibility requirements.

Conclusions

Furlow palatoplasty was superior to other procedures in terms of incidence of velopharyngeal insufficiency. The effectiveness of techniques for speech based on fistula formation was Bardach, Furlow, Wardill-Kilner then von Langenbeck. The one stage palatoplasty was superior to the two-stage approach in terms of fistula formation and velopharyngeal insufficiency.

Level of evidence: Not ratable 

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Agrawal K (2009) Cleft palate repair and variations. Indian J Plast Surg 42:S102–S109. https://doi.org/10.1055/S-0039-1699382

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Canfield MA, Honein MA, Yuskiv N et al (2006) National estimates and race/ethnic-specific variation of selected birth defects in the United States, 1999–2001. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 76:747–756. https://doi.org/10.1002/BDRA.20294

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Campbell A, Costello BJ, Ruiz RL (2010) Cleft lip and palate surgery: an update of clinical outcomes for primary repair. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 22:43–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMS.2009.11.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. LaRossa D (2000) The state of the art in cleft palate surgery. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 37(3):225–228. https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569_2000_037_0225_tsotai_2.3.co_2

  5. Eliason MJ, Hadford S, Green L, Reeves T (2020) Incidence of fistula formation and velopharyngeal insufficiency in early versus standard cleft palate repair. J Craniofac Surg 31:980–982. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000006307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gustafsson C, Vuola P, Leikola J, Heliövaara A (2020) Pierre robin sequence: incidence of speech-correcting surgeries and fistula formation. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 57:344–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665619874991

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pitkanen VV, Geneid A, Saarikko AM et al (2023) Diagnosing and managing velopharyngeal insufficiency in patients with cleft palate after primary palatoplasty. J Craniofac Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000009822

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Kummer AW (2011) Perceptual assessment of resonance and velopharyngeal function. Semin Speech Lang 32:159–167. https://doi.org/10.1055/S-0031-1277718/ID/32/BIB

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kara M, Calis M, Kara I et al (2021) Comparison of speech outcomes using type 2b intravelar veloplasty or furlow double-opposing Z plasty for soft palate repair of patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg 49:215–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCMS.2021.01.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Spauwen PHM, Goorhuis-Brouwer SM, Schutte HK (1992) Cleft palate repair: Furlow versus von Langenbeck. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg 20:18–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1010-5182(05)80190-8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Correction of secondary velopharyngeal insufficiency in clef... : plastic and reconstructive surgery. https://journals.lww.com/plasreconsurg/Abstract/1994/12000/Correction_of_Secondary_Velopharyngeal.5.aspx. Accessed 7 Jul 2023

  12. Deren O, Ayhan M, Tuncel A et al (2005) The correction of velopharyngeal insufficiency by Furlow palatoplasty in patients older than 3 years undergoing Veau-Wardill-Kilner palatoplasty: a prospective clinical study. Plast Reconstr Surg 116:85–93. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PRS.0000169714.38796.AD

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kirschner RE, Wang P, Jawad AF et al (1999) Cleft-palate repair by modified Furlow double-opposing Z-plasty: the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 104:1998–2010. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199912000-00009

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chan EKW, Lee KH, Tsui BSY et al (2014) From von Langenbeck to Furlow palatoplasty: a 16-year review of cleft palate repair. Surg Pract 18:67–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-1633.12054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Randag AC, Dreise MM, Ruettermann M (2014) Surgical impact and speech outcome at 2.5 years after one- or two-stage cleft palate closure. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 78:1903–1907. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPORL.2014.08.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Koh KS, Kim SC, Oh TS (2013) Management of velopharyngeal insufficiency using double opposing z-plasty in patients undergoing primary two-flap palatoplasty. Arch Plast Surg 40:97–103. https://doi.org/10.5999/APS.2013.40.2.97

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Seagle MB, Patti CS, Williams WN, Wood VD (1999) Submucous cleft palate: a 10-year series. Ann Plast Surg 42:142–148. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-199902000-00006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Farzaneh F, Lindman R, Becker M et al (2009) von Langenbeck procedures at 8 months or Wardill at 18 months for primary repair of cleft palate in adult Swedish patients with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate: a study of facial growth. 42:67–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/02844310701850512

  19. Dong Y, Dong F, Zhang X et al (2012) An effect comparison between Furlow double opposing Z-plasty and two-flap palatoplasty on velopharyngeal closure. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 41:604–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2012.01.010

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wójcicki P, Wójcicka G (2008) The management of velopharyngeal insufficiency with Furlow double-opposing Z-plasty procedure. Eur J Plast Surg 31:115–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00238-008-0254-Y/METRICS

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Williams WN, Seagle MB, Pegoraro-Krook MI et al (2011) Prospective clinical trial comparing outcome measures between furlow and von langenbeck palatoplasties for UCLP. Ann Plast Surg 66:154–163. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0B013E3181D60763

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. De Mey A, Franck D, Cuylits N et al (2009) Early one-stage repair of complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. J Craniofac Surg 20:1723–1728. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0B013E3181B3EF71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Becker M, Svensson H, McWilliam J et al (2009) Adult skeletal profile in isolated cleft palate: a comparison of the von langenbeck and wardill procedures for primary repair of the palate. 35:387–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/028443101317149354

  24. Sullivan SR, Vasudavan S, Marrinan EM, Mulliken JB (2011) Submucous cleft palate and velopharyngeal insufficiency: comparison of speech outcomes using three operative techniques by one surgeon. 48:561–570. https://doi.org/10.1597/09-127

  25. Holtmann B, Wray RC, Weeks PM (1984) A comparison of three techniques of palatorrhaphy: early speech results. Ann Plast Surg 12:514–518. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-198406000-00004

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Brothers DB, Dalston RW, Peterson HD, Lawrence WT (1995) Comparison of the Furlow double-opposing Z-palatoplasty with the Wardill-Kilner procedure for isolated clefts of the soft palate. Plast Reconstr Surg 95:969–977. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199505000-00003

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Liao YF, Noordhoff MS, Huang CS et al (2004) Comparison of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome in children with cleft palate following Furlow palatoplasty or pharyngeal flap for velopharyngeal insufficiency. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 41:152–156. https://doi.org/10.1597/02-162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Dec W, Shetye PR, Grayson BH et al (2013) Incidence of oronasal fistula formation after nasoalveolar molding and primary cleft repair. J Craniofac Surg 24:57–61. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0B013E31826D09B5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Holland S, Gabbay JS, Heller JB et al (2007) Delayed closure of the hard palate leads to speech problems and deleterious maxillary growth. Plast Reconstr Surg 119:1302–1310. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PRS.0000258518.81309.70

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ravishanker R (2006) Furlow’s palatoplasty for cleft palate repair. Med J Armed Forces India 62:239. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-1237(06)80010-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Losken HW, Van Aalst JA, Teotia SS et al (2011) Achieving Low cleft palate fistula rates: surgical results and techniques. 48:312–320. https://doi.org/10.1597/08-288

  32. Yun SP, De Chalain T (2008) Incidence of oronasal fistulae and velopharyngeal insufficiency after cleft palate repair: an audit of 211 children born between 1990 and 2004. 45:172–178. https://doi.org/10.1597/06-205.1

  33. Pradel W, Senf D, Mai R et al (2009) One-stage palate repair improves speech outcome and early maxillary growth in patients with cleft lip and palate. J Physiol Pharmacol 60(Suppl 8):37–41

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Yamanishi T, Nishio J, Sako M et al (2011) Early two-stage double opposing z-plasty or one-stage push-back palatoplasty?: comparisons in maxillary development and speech outcome at 4 years of age. Ann Plast Surg 66:148–153. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0B013E3181D6E426

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kahraman A, Yuce S, Kocak OF et al (2014) Comparison of the fistula risk associated with rotation palatoplasty and conventional palatoplasty for cleft palate repair. J Craniofac Surg 25:1728–1733. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000000967

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Woo AS, Skolnick GB, Sachanandani NS, Grames LM (2014) Evaluation of two palate repair techniques for the surgical management of velopharyngeal insufficiency. Plast Reconstr Surg 134:588e–596e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000506

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Gunther E, Wisser JR, Cohen MA, Brown AS (1998) Palatoplasty: Furlow’s double reversing Z-plasty versus intravelar veloplasty. 35:546–549. https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569_1998_035_0546_PFSDRZ_2.3.CO_2

  38. Yuan N, Dorafshar AH, Follmar KE et al (2016) Effects of cleft width and veau type on incidence of palatal fistula and velopharyngeal insufficiency after cleft palate repair. Ann Plast Surg 76:406–410. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000000407

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Deshpande GS, Campbell A, Jagtap R et al (2014) Early complications after cleft palate repair: a multivariate statistical analysis of 709 patients. J Craniofac Surg 25:1614–1618. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000001113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Karsten DA, Larson DM, Larson DO (2003) Dental occlusion after Veau-Wardill-Kilner versus minimal incision technique repair of isolated clefts of the hard and soft palate. 40:504–510. https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569_2003_040_0504_DOAVVM_2.0.CO_2

  41. Basta MN, Silvestre J, Stransky C et al (2014) A 35-year experience with syndromic cleft palate repair: operative outcomes and long-term speech function. Ann Plast Surg 73:S130–S135. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000000286

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Rohrich RJ, Rowsell AR, Johns DF et al (1996) Timing of hard palatal closure: a critical long-term analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 98:236–246. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199608000-00005

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Grobbelaar AO, Hudso DA, Fernandes DB, Lentin R (1995) Speech results after repair of the cleft soft palate. Plast Reconstr Surg 95:1150–1154. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199506000-00002

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Vedung S (1995) Pharyngeal flaps after one- and two-stage repair of the cleft palate: a 25-year review of 520 patients. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 32:206–216. https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569_1995_032_0206_PFAOAT_2.3.CO_2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Medicine, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

    Muhannad Q. Alqirnas & Abdulaziz S. Almosa

  2. King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

    Muhannad Q. Alqirnas, Abdulaziz S. Almosa, Salman Sufian Qasim & Hanan Alhusainan

  3. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Division, Surgery Department, Ministry of National Guards Health Affairs, King Abdullah Children’s Specialist Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

    Salman Sufian Qasim & Hanan Alhusainan

Authors
  1. Muhannad Q. Alqirnas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abdulaziz S. Almosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Salman Sufian Qasim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hanan Alhusainan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors made substantial contributions to the design and analysis of the systematic review while working with other professionals. Additionally, they actively took part in the selection, screening, and examination of studies, the collection of data and information, the evaluation of the randomized controlled trials’ quality, and the data synthesis process. The entire process of examining and approving the finished manuscript was handled by the authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Salman Sufian Qasim.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

Due to the nature of the study, ethical approval was waived.

Consent to participate

For this type of study, informed consent is not required.

Consent to publish

For this type of study, consent to publish is not required.

Competing interests

Muhannad Q. Alqirnas, Abdulaziz S. Almosa, Salman Sufian Qasim, Hanan Alhusainan have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alqirnas, M.Q., Almosa, A.S., Qasim, S.S. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of speech outcome among different surgical techniques post cleft palate repair: Furlow against other  palatoplasty techniques. Eur J Plast Surg 47, 50 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-024-02198-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-024-02198-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation