What Technique Results in the Lowest Rate of Velopharyngeal Insufficiency in Patients With Submucous Cleft Palate? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine which surgical technique offers the lowest rate of velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) without the need for further operative intervention, in pediatric patients with nonsyndromic submucous cleft palate (SMCP). Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis included articles reporting on nonsyndromic pediatric patients treated surgically during childhood for SMCP, with data on postoperative speech outcomes and/or recommendations for secondary surgery. Main outcome measures included rates of unfavorable speech outcomes defined as persistent VPI requiring secondary surgery and speech outcome data. Results: 15 articles met our inclusion criteria, reporting on 383 children who underwent surgical treatment; 343 patients were included in studies reporting recommendations for secondary surgery. There was 1 randomized comparative trial, 4 comparative studies, and 10 single cohort studies. Eight articles used validated speech assessment tools. Our model showed the proportion of patients recommended for secondary surgery varied between techniques, ranging from 0.0% (CI 0.0, 1000) in pharyngeal flap to 17.8% (CI 8.9, 32.5) in straight line repair techniques, but there was no statistically significant difference between treatments ( P = .33). Speech improvement ranged from 44.4% to 100%, with 9 studies recommending secondary surgery for some of their patient series. Conclusions: Although not of statistical significance, pharyngeal flap yields the lowest rate of reoperation as a primary technique for pediatric patients with nonsyndromic SMCP. Delayed repair age inherent to SMCP may render operations that rely on a functional levator muscle with less favorable outcomes. The absence of standardized surgical techniques, speech outcomes, speech therapy, and assessment make comparative analysis and recommendation difficult. We advocate for standardized speech assessment tools to improve future quantitative assessment of cleft surgery outcomes and a randomized controlled trial to better elucidate the preferred first-line technique.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".