Palate re-repair has been shown to be effective in treating VPI following cleft palate repair, both in patients who have not had an intravelar veloplasty and those who have had a previous attempt at muscle dissection and retropositioning. Palate re-repair has a lower morbidity and is more physiological than a pharyngoplasty or pharyngeal flap.

Repair of the muscle abnormality in SMCP is recommended as the first line of treatment in most cases.

No abstract

Objective To compare growth, speech, and nasal symmetry outcomes of three methods of hard palate repair. Patients Consecutive available records of children born with unilateral bony complete cleft lip and palate over the period 1972 to 1992. Interventions Identical management of lip, nose, alveolus, and soft palate. Hard palate repair by Cuthbert Veau (CV) from 1972 to 1981, von Langenbeck (vL) from 1982 to 1989, or medial Langenbeck (ML) from 1989 to 1991. Outcome Measures For growth: GOSLON yardstick or 5-year model index. For speech: articulation test. Nasal anemometry. For nasal symmetry: Coghlan computer-based assessment. All these measures were developed during the period of data collection but not for this project. Results There was a strong trend toward more favorable anteroposterior maxillary growth with the change from CV to vL to ML techniques. This fell short of statistical significance because of the small sample size. There was a significant reduction in cleft-related articulation faults (p = .01) considered to be related to improved arch form. In the absence of improved rates of velopharyngeal insufficiency or nasal symmetry, increased surgical experience was discounted as a significant contribution to improved growth and articulation outcomes. Conclusions Reduced periosteal undermining and residual exposed palatal shelf from CV to vL to ML improved incisor relationships and articulation.

No abstract