Better speech outcomes after very early palatal repair?—A longitudinal case-control study in Ugandan children with cleft palate

Abstract

INTRODUCTION : Children born with cleft palate with or without cleft lip (CP±L) tend to use less oral pressure consonants and more glottal sounds in their babbling. The purpose of very early palatal repair (i.e., one-stage palatal closure prior to 6 months of age) is to make the palate functional before the onset of speech acquisition to reduce the anchoring of wrong patterns in the child's developing phonological system. As a result, less compensatory articulation errors are expected to be present. Currently, no detailed longitudinal speech outcomes after very early palatal closure are available. This study aimed to provide longitudinal speech outcomes in Ugandan children with CP±L who received palatal closure prior to the age of 6 months. METHODS : Ten children with CP±L were assessed at a mean age of 5 and 10 years old. Speech understandability, speech acceptability, resonance, nasal airflow and articulation were perceptually rated by two experienced speech-language pathologists. Velopharyngeal function was estimated using the velopharyngeal composite score (VPC-sum). Information regarding speech therapy, fistula rate, and secondary (speech) surgery was collected. The outcomes were compared with the longitudinal outcomes of an age- and gender-matched control group of 10 Ugandan children without CP±L. RESULTS : Speech understandability and acceptability improved significantly over time in the group with CP±L (all p's ≤ 0.05, all Z's > −2.43). At both test dates, significantly worse judgments were found for the group with CP±L compared to the control group for these variables and variables related to passive speech errors (all p's ≤ 0.05, all Z's > 2.49). A statistically significant difference with the control group was found for the presence of compensatory articulation errors at the age of 5 years but not at the age of 10 years, indicating a catch up by the children with CP±L. CONCLUSION : Whether a one-stage palatal closure prior to the age of 6 months is more favorable for speech outcomes compared to one-stage palatal closure at 12 months is still not clear. Speech of the children with CP±L improved over time, but significantly differed from the control group at the age of 5 and 10 years old. Limited access to health care facilities and possible influence of malnutrition on wound healing need to be considered when interpreting the results. Whether palatal closure prior to the age of 6 months is transferable to other countries is subject for further research, including both longitudinal and prospective designs with larger samples.