Subjective outcomes after treatment for velopharyngeal dysfunction

Abstract

Background: Velopharyngeal dysfunction (VPD) can have various causes and may be a significant disability for the affected patient. Treatment options include surgery and speech therapy, but the success rates are often inconsistent. Methods: In this study, self-assessment questionnaires were sent out to 222 Swedish patients with VPD. The questionnaire included questions about satisfaction with speech, perceived speech quality, perceived improvement from VPD-surgery, and/or speech therapy. Out of 117 (52.7%) respondents, 114 (51.4%) patients were included in the study. The participants were 7–71 years of age (median = 14 years), diagnosed with cleft palate, neurological/developmental delay, congenital hypernasality, or acquired VPD. All patients had previously undergone videofluoroscopy, and 61.4% had undergone VPD-surgery. Results: Seventy-one per cent of the patients perceived their speech to be normal or slightly deviant, but only 55% were satisfied with their speech. Sixty per cent of the operated on patients felt that the treatment had improved their speech much or very much, 10% thought that they had moderate improvement, and 30% stated that they had no or little improvement. Out of the patients that had received speech therapy, 41% felt that the treatment had improved their speech much or very much, 21% thought that they had moderate improvement, and 33% stated that they had no or little improvement. Conclusion: In conclusion, most patients with VPD in this study who underwent evaluation and treatment felt that surgery and speech therapy had improved their speech, but only about half of them were in the end satisfied with the quality of their speech.

Key Words:

• velopharyngeal dysfunction
• speech
• velopharyngeal flap-surgery
• speech therapy
• self-assessment questionnaire
• satisfaction

Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and the writing of the paper. The procedures followed while conducting this article were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 1983.