Soft Palate Mucosal Adhesion with Muscle Release

Objective: Comparison of speech outcomes in 2 similar groups of “wide” cleft palate. One received a Furlow double-opposing Z- plasty (FZP) versus a group (non-FZP) that received only a muscle release at the second stage after both received a soft palate mucosal adhesion (SPA) at the first stage. Methods: Retrospective review. Thirty-three patients (non-FZP) versus 29 patients (FZP) between 2010 and 2016. Both groups had SPA at approximately 6 months of age. After 12 months, an FZP with hard palate closure was performed in the FZP group. in the non-FZP group, only the muscle was released from the posterior palatal shelves with hard palate closure. Speech and velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPi) were determined clinically and by videofluoroscopy. Results: The FZP group (15 M: 14 F) with Veau (III = 14; IV = 5; II = 10) had a mean palate length (MPL) of 20.5 mm and mean palate width (MPW) of 11.2 mm at 8.3 months. MPW decreased to 7 mm after 20.7 months. 21% ( n = 6) had fistulae. 14% ( n = 4) (all males) had VPI. Their MPL was 16.3 mm. The mean follow-up was 5.5 years. In the non-FZP group, (18 M: 15 F) with Veau (III = 22; IV = 7; II = 4), the MPL was 20.5 mm and MPW was 11 mm at 8.4 months. MPW decreased to 6.5 mm after 12.5 months ( P = 0.006). The fistula rate was 18% (n = 6). 24% (n = 8) predominantly male (87%) had VPI ( P = 0.432 ). Their MPL was 17 mm; the mean follow-up was 4.7 years. Conclusions: SPA as a first stage performed in “wide”™ cleft palate narrows the subsequent hard palate repair and with a muscle release, may be adequate in some patients.