Long-term speech outcome after anterior distraction osteogenesis of the maxilla in patients with cleft lip and palate

Kristina Klintö; Henry Svensson; Anna-Paulina Wiedel

doi:10.2340/jphs.v58.12308

Authors

Kristina Klintö Department of Clinical Sciences in Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7044-9386
Henry Svensson Department of Clinical Sciences in Malmö, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden; Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
Anna-Paulina Wiedel Department of Clinical Sciences in Malmö, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden; Department of Orthodontics, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.2340/jphs.v58.12308

Keywords:

Cleft lip and palate, Distraction osteogenesis, Speech, Long-term follow-up

Abstract

Advancement of the maxilla may increase the distance between the soft palate and the posterior pharyngeal wall in patients with cleft lip and palate, implying a risk of velopharyngeal dysfunction. The aim was to evaluate long-term speech outcome in a consecutive series of patients treated with distraction osteogenesis (DO). Fourteen out of the 16 patients agreed to participate. A long-term speech follow-up was performed 1.5 to 13.5 years after DO. For two participants, audio recordings before DO were missing, and for another one, it was incomplete. The percentage of consonants correct (PCC) based on phonetic transcription and perceived velopharyngeal competence rated on a three-point scale were assessed before and after DO by three independent judges, based on audio recordings of reading of standardised sentences. Also, the participants were asked how they perceived their speech after DO. Changes in PCC were insignificant. Four participants perceived deteriorated speech related to DO. In two cases, the subjective deterioration did not correlate to results from perceptual assessment. In two others, the subjective deterioration correlated with the perceptual assessment, and the velopharyngeal function was judged as being incompetent after DO. After secondary velopharyngeal surgery, velopharyngeal function improved to competent in one case and marginally incompetent in the other. The results need to be interpreted with caution due to methodological limitations but indicate that some patients develop deteriorated velopharyngeal function after DO. The impact on articulation needs to be further explored. It is important that patients are informed before treatment of the risk of velopharyngeal dysfunction after DO.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Klintö K, Eriksson M, Abdiu A, Brunnegård K, et al. Inter-centre comparison of data on surgery and speech outcomes at 5 years of age based on the Swedish quality registry for patients born with cleft palate with or without cleft lip. BMC Pediatr. 2022;22:303. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-022-03367-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-022-03367-2

Figueroa AA, Polley JW, Friede H, et al. Long-term skeletal stability after maxillary advance-ment with distraction osteogenesis using a rigid external distraction device in cleft maxillary deformities. Plast Reconst Surg. 2004;114:1382–1392; discussion 93–94. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PRS.0000138593.89303.1B DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PRS.0000138593.89303.1B

Phillips JH, Nish I, Daskalogiannakis J. Orthognathic surgery in cleft patients. Plast Reconstruc-tive Surg. 2012;129:535e–548e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31824128e6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31824128e6

Kloukos D, Fudalej P, Sequeira-Byron P, et al. Maxillary distraction osteogenesis versus orthog-nathic surgery for cleft lip and palate patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;8:CD010403. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010403.pub3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010403.pub3

Cohen SR, Rutrick RE, Burstein FD. Distraction osteogenesis of the human craniofacial skele-ton: initial experience with new distraction system. J Craniofac Surg. 1995;6:368–374. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001665-199509000-00007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00001665-199509000-00007

Cohen SR, Burstein FD, Stewart MB, et al. Maxillary-midface distraction in children with cleft lip and palate: a preliminary report. Plast Reconst Surg. 1997;99:1421–1428. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199705000-00036 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199704001-00036

Shaw WC, Mandall NA, Mattick CR. Ethical and scientific decision making in distraction osteo-genesis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2002;39:641–645. https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569_2002_039_0641_easdmi_2.0.co_2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569_2002_039_0641_easdmi_2.0.co_2

Alaluusua S, Turunen L, Saarikko A, et al. The effects of Le Fort I osteotomy on velopharyngeal function in cleft patients. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2019;47:239–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2018.11.016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2018.11.016

Chua HD, Whitehill TL, Samman N, et al. Maxillary distraction versus orthognathic surgery in cleft lip and palate patients: effects on speech and velopharyngeal function. Int J Oral Maxillo-fac Surg. 2010;39:633–640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2010.03.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2010.03.011

Chanchareonsook N, Whitehill TL, Samman N. Speech outcome and velopharyngeal function in cleft palate: comparison of Le Fort I maxillary osteotomy and distraction osteogenesis – early results. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2007;44:23–32. https://doi.org/10.1597/05-003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1597/05-003

Harjunpaa R, Alaluusua S, Leikola J, et al. Le Fort I osteotomy in cleft patients: maxillary ad-vancement and velopharyngeal function. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2019;47:1868–1874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2019.11.017 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2019.11.017

Smedberg E, Neovius E, Lohmander A. Impact of maxillary advancement on speech and velopharyngeal function in patients with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2014;51:334–343. https://doi.org/10.1597/12-304 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1597/12-304

Alaluusua S, Harjunpaa R, Turunen L, et al. The effect of maxillary advancement on articula-tion of alveolar consonants in cleft patients. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2020;48:472–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2020.02.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2020.02.002

Tsang JMK, Yu WS, Tuomainen J, Sell D, et al. The impact of maxillary osteotomy on fricatives in cleft lip and palate: a perceptual speech and acoustic study. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2022;74:271–283. https://doi.org/10.1159/000520080 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000520080

Hagberg E, Flodin S, Granqvist S, et al. The impact of maxillary advancement on consonant proficiency in patients with cleft lip and palate, lay listeners’ opinion, and patients’ satisfac-tion with speech. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019;56:454–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665618784804 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665618784804

asin L, Becker M, Svensson H, Wiedel AP. Long-term patient-reported outcomes after anterior distraction osteogenesis of the maxilla in patinets with cleft. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2023;57:488–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/2000656X.2022.2164294 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2000656X.2022.2164294

Lohmander A, Borell E, Henningsson G, et al. SVANTE Svenskt artikulations- och nasalitets-test. Manual [in Swedish]. 2nd ed. Lund: Studentlitteartur; 2015.

Lohmander A, Lundeborg I, Persson C. SVANTE – The Swedish Articulation and Nasality Test – normative data and a minimum standard set for cross-linguistic comparison. Clin Linguist Phon. 2017;31:137–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699206.2016.1205666 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02699206.2016.1205666

The International Phonetic Association. The International Phonetic Alphabet (Revised to 2015). extIPA Symbols for Disordered Speech (Revised to 2008). International Phonetic Associ-ation; 2008; 2015 [Retrieved March 2 2023]. Availa-ble from:https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/content/ipa-chart

Shriberg LD, Kwiatkowski J. Phonological disorders III: a procedure for assessing severity of involvement. J Speech Hear Disord. 1982;47:256–270. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.4703.256 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.4703.256

Cicchetti DV. The precision of reliability and validity estimates re-visited: distinguishing be-tween clinical and statistical significance of sample size requirements. J Clin Exp Neuropsy-chol. 2001;23:695–700. https://doi.org/10.1076/jcen.23.5.695.1249 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1076/jcen.23.5.695.1249

Klintö K, Lohmander A. Does the recording medium influence phonetic transcription of cleft palate speech? Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2017;52:440–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12282 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12282

Havstam C, Lohmander A, Dahlgren Sandberg A, et al. Speech and satisfaction with outcome of treatment in young adults with unilateral or bilateral complete clefts. Scand J Plast Reconst Surg Hand Surg. 2008;42:182–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/02844310802055102 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02844310802055102

Brunnegård K, Lohmander A. A cross-sectional study of speech in 10-year-old children with cleft palate: results and issues of rater reliability. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2007;44:33–44. https://doi.org/10.1597/05-164 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1597/05-164

Lohmander A, Friede H, Lilja J. Long-term, longitudinal follow-up of individuals with unilateral cleft lip and palate after the Gothenburg primary early veloplasty and delayed hard palate closure protocol: speech outcome. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49:657–671. https://doi.org/10.1597/11-085 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1597/11-085

Brunnegård K, Hagberg E, Havstam C, et al. Reliability of speech variables and speech-related quality indicators in the swedish cleft lip and palate registry. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2020;57:715–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665619894497 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665619894497