Abstract
Objective
To ascertain the current practice in the United Kingdom with regard to the use of bite blocks and the division of the pedicles in buccinator flap surgery for velopharyngeal insufficiency. To compare the outcomes of fixed and removable bite blocks in buccinator flap surgery, in terms of the incidence of pedicle injury and patient experience.
Design
Survey of cleft surgeons in the United Kingdom on their use of bite blocks and division of the pedicles. Retrospective cohort review of consecutive patients that underwent buccinator flap surgery at Salisbury District Hospital between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022, comparing the use of fixed and removable bite blocks. Survey of patients who had bite blocks fitted to understand the patient and family experience.
Results
Cleft consultants from the United Kingdom and Ireland responded: half (11 of 22) reported using bite blocks and half reported routinely dividing the pedicles, most commonly at 4 to 6 weeks after surgery. In our cohort (19 patients), fixed bite blocks had a higher incidence of pedicle injury (33%) and difficulty eating (78%) than removable bite blocks (20% and 20%, respectively). Generally, parents/patients tolerated the presence of bite blocks and were often unaware of pedicle injury, even in cases of repeated severe biting.
Conclusion
There is variation in the current use of bite blocks and pedicle division following buccinator flap surgery in the United Kingdom. In compliant patients, removable bite blocks may be associated with lower complication rates but neither fixed nor removable bite blocks compromise flap integrity.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
