Minor modification of soft palate surgical technique resulted in a considerable increase of residual cleft dimensions for unilateral cleft lip and palate
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/jphs.v61.45063Keywords:
cleft lip and palate, soft palate surgery, hard palate surgery, residual cleft, residual cleft dimensionAbstract
Introduction: A two-stage surgical approach, starting with the soft palate, has been practiced in the Gothenburg cleft team for unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) since decades. To improve the velopharyngeal function, a modified soft palate closure (SPC) technique was introduced. Clinical observations did however indicate that the novel technique resulted in a deviant residual cleft shape, potentially contributing to future compromised dental arch form.
Aim: This study aimed to compare residual cleft dimensions (area, width and length) between different SPC techniques and at various age, in individuals born with UCLP.
Material and methods: The sample consisted of three groups of children with non-syndromic UCLP:
1. 27 individuals who had original SPC and hard palate closure (HPC) at 3 years (GBG3)
2. 37 individuals who had a modified SPC and HPC at 2 years (GBGmod)
3. 29 individuals who had original SPC and HPC at 2 years (GBG2).
Residual cleft area, length and width were measured on digitised cast models using Blender software. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to compare the groups.
Results: Larger residual cleft dimensions (area and length) were found for GBGmod compared to both GBG3 (p < 0.001, p = 0.009) and GBG2 (p = 0.009, p = 0.009). In addition, GBGmod had increased cleft width in comparison with GBG3 and GBG2 in quartile 1.
Conclusion: The modified SPC technique resulted in larger residual clefts in comparison with the groups operated with the original SPC method. Timing differences between GBG3 and GBG2 are likely one explanation of cleft width variations anteriorly.
Downloads
References
Friede H, Lilja J, Lohmander A. Long-term, longitudinal follow-up of individuals with UCLP after the Gothenburg primary early veloplasty and delayed hard palate closure protocol: maxillofacial growth outcome. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49(6):649–656. https://doi.org/10.1597/10-252 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1597/10-252
Lilja J, et al. Analysis of dental arch relationships in Swedish unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects: 20-year longitudinal consecutive series treated with delayed hard palate closure. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43(5):606–611. https://doi.org/10.1597/05-069 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1597/05-069
Friede H, Lilja J, Lohmander A. Two-stage palatal surgery with early veloplasty and delayed hard palate repair: a balanced view on speech and midfacial growth outcome, in cleft lip and palate, diagnosis and management. Berkowitz S, editor. Springer; 2013. p. 413–436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30770-6_18
Najar Chalien M, et al. Long-term outcome for two-stage palatal closure with different timings for hard palate surgery: craniofacial growth and den-tal arch relation. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2023;60(9):1140–1148. https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656221140676 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656221140676
Botticelli S, et al. Do infant cleft dimensions have an influence on occlusal relations? A subgroup analysis within an RCT of primary surgery in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2020;57(3):378–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665619875320 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665619875320
Peltomäki T, et al. Associations between severity of clefting and maxillary growth in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate treated with infant orthopedics. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2001;38(6):582–586. https://doi.org/10.1597/1545- 1569_2001_038_0582_absoca_2.0.co_2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569_2001_038_0582_absoca_2.0.co_2
Wiggman K, et al. The influence of the initial width of the cleft in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate related to final treatment outcome in the maxilla at 17 years of age. Eur J Orthod. 2013;35(3):335–340. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjr144 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjr144
Mark, H., J. Lilja, and C. Havstam, Long-term longitudinal follow-up of individuals with UCLP after Gothenburg twostage palate closure: surgical and speech outcomes. J Plast Surg Hand Surg, 2023. 58: p. 19-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/jphs.v58.7317
Mark, H. and J. Lilja, Staged Palate Repair – Soft Palate First, in Interdisciplinary Cleft Care, H. U, et al., Editors. 2022/2023, Plural Publishing: San Diego. p. 327-334.
Sahlsten Schölin, J., H. Mark, and S. Rizell, Craniofacial Growth in Children With Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate: Adopted From China Versus Born in Sweden. J Craniofac Surg, 2025. 36(3): p. 882-886. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000010862
Berkowitz S, et al. Timing of cleft palate closure should be based on the ratio of the area of the cleft to that of the palatal segments and not on age alone. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005; 115(6):1483–1499. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PRS.0000161673. 31770.23 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PRS.0000161673.31770.23
Owman-Moll P, Katsaros C, Friede H. Development of the residual cleft in the hard palate after velar repair in a 2-stage pala-tal repair regimen. J Orofac Orthop. 1998;59(5):286–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01321795 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01321795
de Jong JP, Breugem CC. Early hard palate closure using a vomer flap in unilateral cleft lip and palate: effects on cleft width. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(4):1285–1290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1091-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1091-3
Botticelli S, et al. Palatal morphology in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients: sssociation with infant cleft dimensions and timing of hard palate repair. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2019;22(4):270–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12318 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12318
Johnson N, et al. Initial cleft size does not correlate with outcome in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Eur J Orthod. 2000;22(1):93–100. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/22.1.93 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/22.1.93
Botticelli S, et al. Novel 3-D analysis for the assessment of cleft dimensions on digital models of infants with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019;56(1):127–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665618770795 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665618770795
Cornefjord, M., K. Källén, K. Klintö, et al., Birth prevalence of cleft lip and/or palate - a register study of all children born in Sweden years 2000-2020. J Plast Surg Hand Surg, 2025. 60: p. 120-126. https://doi.org/10.2340/jphs.v60.43739 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/jphs.v60.43739
Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Midia Najar Chalien, Hans Mark, Josef Rizell, Sara Rizell
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Acta Chirurgica Scandinavica Society owns the copyright for all material published until Volume 57 (2023) unless otherwise specified. As from 2024 all published articles, unless otherwise specified, are published under CC-BY licences, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, with the condition of proper attribution to the original work.
