xRead - Treatment of Cleft Lip and Cleft Palate (May 2025)

4

3b

Outcomes Follow-up Level BFP Compared against 12.1 ± 3.0

Evidence

mo (BFP), 13.4 ± 3.2 mo

(control)

55months (19-101

months)

percentage of correct identi fi cation of cheek fl ap side and poor

lengthening and decreased VP gap in BFP group ( P =

hypernasality in non-BFP group ( P = .023) and higher hypernasality score ( P =

N/A Flap side Non- fl ap side No signi fi cant differences between fl ap side and

inter-evaluator agreement in expert blind-review of patient ’ s photographs

.001 and .04, respectively). One fi stula in non-BFP group vs. none in BFP group.

non- fl ap side regarding soft

.023). Greater palatal

tissue volume of the cheeks in all sample and in sub-group analysis of

incomplete and bilateral

cleft palate, measured by 3D software. Low

Unilateral in left oral defect (n = 15) None (n = 17) More severe post-op

Intervention

Palate repair surgical

technique

Study Study design n Inclusion criteria Secondary palate repair Park, 2021 36 Retrospective comparative study 32 VPD Secondary Furlow

of BFP for primary cleft palate repair or cleft palate fi stula repair

unilateral harvest

24 Patients with

Donor - site asymmetry a Bennett, 2017 39 Outcome comparative study

Table 2. (continued)

CBCT: Cone-beam computed tomography; UCL: Unilateral cleft lip; UCLP: Unilateral cleft lip and palate; VPD: Velopharyngeal dysfunction. a BFP used in all patients, study evaluates long-term donor site morbidity.

8