Number of patients
Male
230 (53 %)
Female
201 (47 %)
Type of velopharyngeal Incompetence
No cleft
271 (63 %)
Submucous cleft
86 (20 %)
From trauma
68 (16 %)
From disease
6 (1 %)
Each patient was examined and evaluated by a plastic surgeon, prosthodontist, and speech-language pathologist with a combined experience of 110 years. A questionnaire was designed for data acquisition and long-term follow-up of these patients (Table 40.2).
Table 40.2
Questionnaire designed to record appropriate information on patients for the study
1. Patient number ______________________________________________________________________________
|
2. Patient name ________________________________________________________________________________
|
3. Patient address ______________________________________________________________________________
|
4. Birth date _________________________________________ 5. Sex ________ Race: ______________________________
|
6. Referral source ______________________________________________________________________________
|
7. Chief complaint _____________________________________________________________________________
|
8. Specific diagnosis:
|
Congenital VPI, no cleft __________
|
VPI with cleft __________
|
VPI with submucous cleft __________
|
VPI from trauma __________
|
VPI from cancer __________
|
VPI with other diseases __________
|
Iatrogenic VPI __________
|
Other unclassifiable __________
|
9. Diagnostic data available
|
Cephs __________
|
Lateral only __________
|
Lateral and AP __________
|
At ages ___________________________
|
No cephs _________________ Tracings
|
Cineradiographs
|
Yes _________ at ages ___________________________
|
No _________
|
Recordings
|
Yes _________ at ages ___________________________
|
No _________
|
Dental models
|
Yes _________ at ages ___________________________
|
No _________
|
Growth analysis
|
Yes _________ No _________
|
Sonograms
|
Yes _________ No _________
|
Audiology examination
|
Yes _________ at ages ___________________________
|
No _________
|
Surgical records
|
Yes _________ No _________
|
10. Other conditions (short narrative or diagnostic classification)
|
Dental health: _______________________________________________________________________________
|
Orthodontic: ________________________________________________________________________________
|
Audiology, otology: __________________________________________________________________________
|
Allergies: __________________________________________________________________________________
|
Smoking habits:
|
No _________ Yes _________ Pack/day
|
Tonsils and adenoids removed:
|
Yes _________ age _________
|
No _________
|
11. When was VPI first noticed:
|
Age of onset __________
|
Circumstance __________
|
Who first noted VPI __________
|
12. VIP treatment history
|
Speech therapy ______________________________ No. of sessions ___________________________________
|
Surgery (flap) _______________________________ Type of flap ______________________________________
|
Surgeon ____________________________________ Hospital ________________________________________
|
Other surgery _______________________________ Procedure _______________________________________
|
Surgeon ____________________________________ Hospital ________________________________________
|
Prosthesis __________________________________ Type of prosthesis _________________________________
|
Prosthodontist _______________________________ Hospital/clinic ___________________________________
|
13. Sequence of treatment (if multiple procedures)
|
Speech therapy only __________
|
Flap and speech __________
|
Flap only __________
|
Lift and speech __________
|
Lift only __________
|
Speech and flap __________
|
Speech and lift __________
|
Flap and lift __________
|
Lift and flap __________
|
Three procedures sequence:
|
1. _______________________ 2. _______________________ 3. _______________________
|
14. Evaluation of result (speech)
|
Date of last follow-up __________
|
Acceptable __________
|
Not acceptable __________
|
Acceptable but can improve __________
|
Not acceptable but can improve __________
|
No improvement likely __________
|
Should recall patient __________
|
15. Recommendations
|
Today’s date ____________________________ Preparer’s signature ____________________________
|
40.1.1 The Referral
It is interesting to note that 256 patients (59 %) were referred by speech-language pathologists (Table 40.3), indicating that velopharyngeal incompetency is not recognized at an early age and that the diagnosis is frequently made when the patient starts school. The number of physician referrals was 96 (22 %). The remaining referrals (19 %) came from rehabilitation counselors, dentists, rehabilitation centers, and families.
Table 40.3
Referral source for VPI patients
Source
|
No. of referrals
|
Percent of sample (%)
|
---|---|---|
Speech pathologist
|
256
|
59
|
Physician/surgeon
|
98
|
23
|
RN (nurse)
|
23
|
5
|
Dentist
|
12
|
3
|
PDH/BVR
|
23
|
5
|
Rehabilitation center
|
1
|
0.5
|
Social worker
|
2
|
0.5
|
Family
|
18
|
4
|
Please note that 104 patients (25 %) had had their tonsils and adenoids removed in order to eliminate or remedy the velopharyngeal incompetency (Table 40.4). This, of course, causes an increase in hypernasality for the VPI patient.
Table 40.4
Status of tonsils and adenoids of VPI pallechts
Status of adenoids
|
No. of cases
|
Percent of sample (%)
|
---|---|---|
In
|
100
|
23
|
Out
|
104
|
24
|
In/out (to insert pharyngeal flap)
|
14
|
3
|
No information available
|
213
|
50
|
In addition to oral examination, nasal endoscopy, and individual judgment, all patients had two cephalometric radiographs taken, one with the soft palate at rest and the second during prolonged phonation of the vowel “E.” Twenty-five percent of the subjects had cineradiographic studies of the velopharyngeal region to observe continuous phonation.
40.1.2 Results of Treatment
According to nasal endoscopic evaluation, radiographic analysis, and listener judgments, 126 (29 %) of the patients demonstrated inconsistent or borderline velopharyngeal dysfunction (Table 40.5). The team decided that each subject was to be referred to a speech-language pathologist with instructions to have a review by the team in 1 year if the condition persisted. Further evaluation of these patients after 1 year revealed that the hypernasality or nasal emission had subsided, and none required further treatment.
Table 40.5
Treatment methodology for patients with VPI
Treatment
|
No. of cases
|
Percentage of sample (%)
|
---|---|---|
Speech only
|
126
|
29
|
Pharyngeal flap
|
122
|
28
|
Pharyngeal flap recommended
|
55
|
13
|
Palatal lift
|
74
|
17
|
Palatal lift removed after stimulation
|
8
|
2
|
Palatal lift recommended
|
15
|
3
|
Pharyngeal flap – palatal lift
|
16
|
4
|
Palata lift – pharyngeal flap
|
12
|
4
|
It was recommended that 177 patients (41 %) have pharyngeal flap surgery. In 122 patients (mean age, 10 years), the surgical procedure consisted of a superiorly based flap performed by our staff plastic surgeon. The remaining 55 subjects were referred to the plastic surgeon of their choice for a pharyngeal flap with instructions to return to the clinic after insertion of the flap for further evaluation.