Comparison of two palatoplasty with intravelar veloplasty technique in children with cleft palate
ZHAO Shufan1, SHI Bing2
1.Department of Stomatology, Guangzhou Women and Children’s Medical Center,Guangzhou 510000, China; 2.Department of Cleft Lip and Palate Surgery, West China Hospital of Stomatology,Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China
ZHAO Shufan,SHI Bing. Comparison of two palatoplasty with intravelar veloplasty technique in children with cleft palate[J]. JOURNAL OF WEZHOU MEDICAL UNIVERSITY, 2021, 51(8): 646-651.
Abstract：Objective: To compare the clinical effect of two palatopalasty techniques with traditional and radical intravelar veloplasty for children older than 2 years old with cleft palate. Methods: The clinical data of 220 patients after primary palatoplasty in West China Stomatology Hospital of Sichuan University from 1985 to 2013 were retrospectively analyzed. The incidence of postoperative velopharyngeal insufficiency and palatal fistula were compared between the two groups. Meanwhile, the factors associated with velopharyngeal insufficiency were analyzed by hierarchical analysis and multiple logistic regression analysis. Results: There was no significant difference between the two study groups in the rate of velopharyngeal insufficiency and oronasal fistula (P>0.05). Nevertheless, in the RIVV group, the rate of velopharyngeal insufficiency of 2-to-5-year group was significantly lower than the group ≥5 years old (P<0.05). Logistic regression analysis showed that age at palatoplasty was the only most important risk factor of velopharyngeal insufficiency (OR=1.107, 95%CI=1.037-1.181, P=0.002). Logistic regression analysis of TIVV subgroup showed no risk factor of velopharyngeal insufficiency. Furthermore, logistic regression analysis of RIVV subgroup showed that age at palatoplasty was the risk of VP insufficiency (OR=1.102, 95%CI=1.025-1.185, P=0.009). Conclusion: The radical intravelar veloplasty was not significantly superior to the traditional intravelar veloplasty for cleft palate children older than 2 years. Moreover, the RIVV technique may be more suitable for those aged 2 to 5 years old.
