title: Palatal Motion After Primary and Secondary Furlow Palatoplasty.
abstract: Indications for Furlow palatoplasty include primary repair of cleft palate as well as secondary repair, or secondary palatoplasty for treatment of velopharyngeal insufficiency. Speculation exists surrounding the benefit of secondary Furlow palatoplasty in cases of a previously well-reconstructed palate or a short but otherwise anatomically normal soft palate because it has been theorized that reorientation of a previously reconstructed or normal muscular levator sling should in fact worsen palatal motion.
  
  
  
  To compare palatal motion following primary and secondary Furlow palatoplasty using footage from postoperative nasopharyngoscopy videos.
  
  
  
  In this retrospective case series, medical records in a database of an urban academic pediatric otolaryngology practice was used to identify patients who had undergone either primary or secondary Furlow palatoplasty. Subjects with adequate postoperative nasopharyngoscopy footage were randomized, and 2 blinded reviewers assessed soft palate motion in each video using an abbreviated version of the Golding-Kushner scale.
  
  
  
  Reviewers' blinded ratings of soft palate motion were quantified using a modified Golding-Kushner scale to generate a mean palatal motion score for each subject (range, 0.0-2.0). Scores of primary and secondary Furlow palatoplasty patients were compared.
  
  
  
  Over a 4-year period, 20 patients with adequate postoperative nasopharyngoscopy footage were identified (12 primary Furlow palatoplasty patients and 8 secondary Furlow palatoplasty patients). Patients consisted of 8 males and 12 females and ranged in age from 12 months to 22 years at the time of postoperative nasopharyngoscopy. Modified Golding-Kushner scores were similar between groups: mean primary group, 1.61 (range, 0.5-2.0); mean secondary group, 1.53 (range, 0.75-2.0); absolute difference in mean, 0.08 (95% CI, 0.00-0.43); effect size, Hedges g, 0.18. There was fair interrater reliability (interclass coefficient, R = 0.45), consistent with prior reports using this scale. No significant difference in postoperative palatal motion scores was identified between primary and secondary palatoplasty groups in this study.
  
  
  
  When examined in isolation, postoperative motion of the soft palate appears similar following both primary and secondary Furlow palatoplasty procedures, suggesting that there are no major deleterious effects on palatal motion following secondary Furlow palatoplasty.
authors.affiliation: Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
authors.forename: Pamela A
authors.initials: PA
authors.lastname: Rudnicki
authors.affiliation: Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts2Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
authors.forename: Christopher
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Tsang
authors.affiliation: Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts3Department of Pediatric Otolaryngology and Facial Plastic Surgery, Floating Hospital for Children at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
authors.forename: Mark A
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Vecchiotti
authors.affiliation: Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts3Department of Pediatric Otolaryngology and Facial Plastic Surgery, Floating Hospital for Children at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
authors.forename: Andrew R
authors.initials: AR
authors.lastname: Scott
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D002648:Child; D002675:Child, Preschool; D002972:Cleft Palate / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000601:surgery*; D004724:Endoscopy; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007223:Infant; D008297:Male; D010160:Palate, Soft / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D019651:Plastic Surgery Procedures; D012086:Reoperation; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D055815:Young Adult