Purpose: Primary palatoplasties using the Anatomic Cleft Restoration Philosophy uses the buccinator myomucosal flap (buccal flap) as the major tissue replacement flap to correct the tissue deficiency within the cleft palate malformation. The surgical approach aims to close the palate without tension, lengthen the palate, reconstruct the levator muscular sling, not inhibit craniofacial growth and achieve proper resonance for speech. The purpose of this study is to present preliminary data on velopharyngeal variables to demonstrate the muscle and tissue morphology in adults with cleft palate who have not received a secondary surgery for speech or orthognathic surgery. Methods: Magnetic resonance imaging was used to analyze velopharyngeal variables for 2 individuals with the buccal flap approach and 2 individuals who received a traditional cleft palate repair. Linear measurements were obtained and 2 velopharyngeal ratios were calculated. Results: All variables were compared to previously published normative data of velopharyngeal variables for individuals with non-cleft anatomy who are of the same race, sex, and of similar age. The individuals with the buccal flap approach presented with a similar velar length and levator length in comparison to individuals with non-cleft anatomy. The individuals with the buccal flap approach presented with a longer effective velar length and velar length in comparison to individuals with a traditional cleft palate repair. Visually, the individual with the buccal flap presents with a thicker tissue mass between the hard and soft palate junction. Conclusions: In this case study, individuals who received a primary palatoplasty with the buccal flap approach presented with a longer velum and effective velar length in comparison to individuals with a traditional cleft palate repair and those with non-cleft anatomy. This study highlights the utility of using magnetic resonance imaging to quantify the changes that occur to the velopharyngeal anatomy following the buccal flap surgical approach.
JacksonITMoreira-GonzalezAARogersABealBJ.The buccal flap-a useful technique in cleft palate repair?Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2004;41:144-151.
3.
MannRJMartinMDEichhornMG, et al. The double-opposing Z-plasty plus or minus buccal flap approach for repair of cleft palate: a review of 505 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:735e-744e.
4.
HensGSellDPinkstoneM, et al. Palate lengthening by buccinator myomucosal flaps for velopharyngeal insufficiency. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2013;50:e84-e91.
5.
HassaniMELatifiNAKarimiHKhakzadM.Unilateral buccinator flap for lengthening of short palate. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29:1619-1624.
JagannathanMDixitV.Palatal lengthening following use of the buccal myomucosal flap in primary palatoplasty-real of apparent? A study of the physical variables. Eur J Plast Surg. 2004;26:414-418.
BusseRFHariharanHVuABrittainJH.Fast spin echo sequences with very long echo trains: design of variable refocusing flip angle schedules and generation of clinical T2 contrast. Magn Reson Med. 2006;55:1030-1037.
10.
PerryJLKuehnDPSuttonBPGamageJKFangX.Anthropometric analysis of the velopharynx and related craniometric dimensions in three adult populations using MRI. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2016;53(1):e1-e13.
11.
HaensslerAEFangXPerryJL.Effective velopharyngeal ratio: a more clinically relevant measure of velopharyngeal function. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2020;63(11):3586-3593.
