Advertisement

Impact of Timing of Surgery on the Development of Speech in Toddlers with Repaired Cleft Lip and Palate

Conference paper
  • 427 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)

Abstract

Introduction: Cleft lip and palate (CLP) is one of the most prevalent congenital deformities seen in Indian children. This condition hinders effective communication in early childhood due to speech and language difficulties. The development of speech and language is mainly based on the type and severity of CLP and the age at which surgical intervention followed by speech therapy was initiated. Early intervention plays an important role in enhancing the communication skills in children with CLP. Objectives: The present study endeavours to compare and profile the speech characteristics of toddlers with repaired cleft of lip and palate (RCLP) with respect to the frequency, type and pattern of speech sound inventory of those who had undergone surgical intervention at an early age versus those who had delayed surgery. Participants: Six Kannada speaking toddlers in the age range of 2–3 years, who were diagnosed to have Expressive Language Delay secondary to repaired cleft of lip and/or palate were considered for the Early Intervention Programme. The six participants were placed into two groups based on the age of surgical intervention. Thus there were three participants in the early intervention group (EIG—who underwent surgery before 1.6 years of age) and three in the delayed intervention group (DIG—who underwent surgery after 1.6 years of age). Method: The baseline was established and measures such as type and pattern of the vowels and consonant inventory were analysed for toddlers in both the groups. Speech and language therapy was given for 20 sessions. Focused stimulation technique was used to enhance speech and language parameters. Post-therapy measurement was done after 20 sessions. Main outcome measures: Descriptive statistics was used to compare the differences in speech measures for the pre-therapy and post-therapy conditions between early and delayed intervention groups. Results: The results revealed certain points of interest. Although both groups showed an improvement in the quality and quantity of phonetic inventory between pre- and post-therapy conditions, it was interesting to note that the mean values in the EI group were consistently higher across phonemes when compared to the DI group. The results clearly highlight the positive effects of early surgical and speech intervention. The speech patterns of each group and the consequent implications have been discussed in detail. Conclusions: The present study is one of the few attempts to investigate the impact of timing of surgical correction on the development of phonetic inventory in children with CLP and also highlights the clinical implications of early surgical and subsequent speech and language intervention.

Keywords

Cleft palate Early intervention Delayed intervention Vowel and consonant inventory Surgical correction 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This is a part of ongoing research on ‘Efficacy of Early Language Intervention Program for Children with Repaired Cleft lip and Palate’, funded by the Department of Science and Technology (DST—No. SB/SO/HS/02/2014), Government of India. The authors would like to thank DST for funding the project. The authors would also like to thank the Director, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysuru, for providing the infrastructure to carry out the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Raju S (2000) In search of a smile-study of children born with cleft lip and palate in India. Tata Institute of Social Sciences: Mumbai. www.smiletrain.org. Accessed 15 Aug 2009
  2. 2.
    Shrivatsav S (2013) Parents still don’t bring cleft lip, palate kids for treatment. Times of India, Nagpur, 18 January 2013Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sunitha R, Jacob M, Jacob MS, Nagarajan R (2004) Providing intervention services for communication deficits associated with cleft lip and/or palate- A retrospective analysis. Asia Pac Disabil Rehabil J 15:78–85Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D’Antonio LL, Scherer NJ (2008) Communication disorders associated with cleft palate. In: Losee J, Kirschner R (eds) Comprehensive cleft care, pp 64–78. McGraw HillGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Patel PK (2016) Cleft palate repair. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1279283-overview
  6. 6.
    Rohrich RJ, Love EJ, Byrd HS, Johns DF (2000) Optimal timing of cleft palate closure. Plast Reconstr Surg 106(2):413–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rosenstein SW, Dado DV (2005) Early bone grafting with the functional cleft lip repair. Semin Plast Surg 19(4):302–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guerrero CA (2012) Cleft lip and palate surgery: 30 years follow-up. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2(2):153–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kobus K, Kobus-Zalesna K (2014) Timing of cleft lip and palate repair. Dev Period Med 18(1):78–83Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dorf DS, Curtin JW (1982) Early cleft palate repair and speech outcome. Plast Reconstr Surg 70(1):74–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sell DA, Grunwell P (1990) Speech results following late palatal surgery in previously unoperated Sri Lankan adolescents with cleft palate. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J 27(2):162–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Willadsen E (2012) Influence of timing of hard palate repair in a two-stage procedure on early language development in Danish children with cleft palate. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J 49(5):574–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Klinto K, Svensson H, Elander A, Lohmander A (2013) Speech and phonology in Swedish-speaking 3-year-olds with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate following different methods for primary palatal surgery. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J 51(3):274–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Murthy J, Sendhilnathan S, Hussain SA (2009) Speech outcome following late primary palate repair. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J 47(2):156–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scherer NJ, Kaiser A (2007) Early intervention in children with cleft palate. Infants Young Child 20:355–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meinusch M, Romonath R (2011) Early language intervention for children with cleft lip and/or palate: a systematic review. Evid Based Commun Assess Interv 5(4):197–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pushpavathi M, Kavya V, Akshatha V (2017) Efficacy of Focused Stimulation in Early Language Intervention Program for Toddlers with Repaired Cleft Palate. Glob J Otolaryngol 9(1):1–8Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bzoch KR, League R (1971) Assessing language skills in infancy. University Park Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Luyten A, Bettens K, D’haeseleer E, De Ley S, Hodges A, Galiwango G, Bonte K, Vermeersch H, Van Lierde K (2014) The impact of palatal repair before and after 6 months of age on speech characteristics. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 78:787–798Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pushpavathi M, Kavya V, Akshatha V (2017) Efficacy of early intervention program for children with cleft lip and palate: a case study. JCLAD 5(1):31–42Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chapman KL, Hardin MA (1991) Language input of mothers interacting with their young children with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 28(1):78–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Scherer NJ, D’ Antonio L, McGahey H (2008) Early intervention for speech impairments in children with cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 45:18–31Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Speech-Language PathologyAll India Institute of Speech and HearingMysoreIndia

Personalised recommendations