We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
The Significance of Uvula After Palatoplasty: A New Technique to Improve the Aesthetic Outcome.
Cleft Palate-craniofacial Journal 2018 March
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the importance of the uvula as a part of palatoplasty outcome and to assess the aesthetic results of the conventional versus a new technique for uvuloplasty.
DESIGN/PARTICIPANTS: The study included 2 groups of patients undergoing palatoplasty. Group I consisted of 20 cleft palate patients repaired with the conventional uvula repair, combining the 2 hemi-uvulae. Group II consisted of 20 patients repaired with our new technique, sacrificing one hemi-uvula and centralizing the remaining one. The aesthetic outcome was assessed in both groups. A questionnaire was distributed to the families of both groups to assess their concern about the uvula after palate repair.
SETTING: Cleft unit at a tertiary care center.
RESULTS: Sixty-five percent of parents considered the uvula as important functionally and aesthetically after palate repair whereas 35% either did not care or were not sure about its importance. Results of the aesthetic outcome of the 2 techniques for uvula reconstruction showed that uvula was absent in 4 cases in group I versus 1 in group II ( P > .05), small in 8 cases of group I versus 4 in group II ( P > .05), bifid in 5 cases of group I versus none in group II ( P < .05), became deviated in no case of group I versus 4 in group II ( P > .05), and was satisfactory in 3 cases of group I versus 11 in group II ( P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Among the respondents, the uvula was a significant concern to the parents of cleft patients and should be given more attention during repair. The described technique had better aesthetic outcome over the conventional one of combining the 2 hemi-uvulae.
DESIGN/PARTICIPANTS: The study included 2 groups of patients undergoing palatoplasty. Group I consisted of 20 cleft palate patients repaired with the conventional uvula repair, combining the 2 hemi-uvulae. Group II consisted of 20 patients repaired with our new technique, sacrificing one hemi-uvula and centralizing the remaining one. The aesthetic outcome was assessed in both groups. A questionnaire was distributed to the families of both groups to assess their concern about the uvula after palate repair.
SETTING: Cleft unit at a tertiary care center.
RESULTS: Sixty-five percent of parents considered the uvula as important functionally and aesthetically after palate repair whereas 35% either did not care or were not sure about its importance. Results of the aesthetic outcome of the 2 techniques for uvula reconstruction showed that uvula was absent in 4 cases in group I versus 1 in group II ( P > .05), small in 8 cases of group I versus 4 in group II ( P > .05), bifid in 5 cases of group I versus none in group II ( P < .05), became deviated in no case of group I versus 4 in group II ( P > .05), and was satisfactory in 3 cases of group I versus 11 in group II ( P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Among the respondents, the uvula was a significant concern to the parents of cleft patients and should be given more attention during repair. The described technique had better aesthetic outcome over the conventional one of combining the 2 hemi-uvulae.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app