Abstract：
BACKGROUND: The double-opposing Z-plasty is a fundamental approach for cleft palate repair. Recently, some surgeons have begun implementing a single Z-Plasty, igniting discussions on the most effective technique for enhancing postoperative outcomes. Consequently, this study sought to evaluate the outcomes of employing single and double Z-plasties within the modified Sommerlad-Furlow technique.
METHODS: 116 cleft palate patients undergoing primary surgical repair were divided into two groups: those treated with the Sommerlad-Furlow method using a double-opposing Z-plasty (S.F.2.Z.P. group, n = 58) and those receiving a single nasal Z-plasty (S.F.1.Z.P. group, n = 58). Data on cleft type and width, soft palate length, palatal fistula, and velopharyngeal function were collected. Mann-Whitney test compared the mean values between groups.
RESULTS: The S.F.2ZP group demonstrated a statistically significant increase in soft palate length compared to those in the S.F.1ZP group (p = 0.008). However, the S.F.1ZP group demonstrated adequate soft palate length (7.9 ± 2.8 mm) compared to the S.F.2ZP group (9.3 ± 2.8 mm). The velopharyngeal function was good in both groups, with no significant differences (P = 0.52). While the proper velopharyngeal closure was 81% in the S.F.1ZP group and 87.9% in the S.F.2ZP group, velopharyngeal insufficiency was 10.3% and 5.2%, respectively. The rates of persistent palatal fistula were 5.2% in the S.F.1ZP group and 3.4% in the S.F.2ZP group, with no significant differences found between both groups (P = 0.64).
CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in crucial outcomes such as velopharyngeal function and the incidence of persistent palatal fistulas, indicating the effectiveness of both techniques. While the double-opposing Z-plasty demonstrated a statistically significant increase in soft palate length, the a nasal Z-plasty demonstrated adequate soft palate length which sufficiently enables effective velopharyngeal closure. These outcomes suggest that a single Z-plasty is both effective and easy to perform, making it a valuable surgical approach for achieving the desired outcomes..
CONCLUSIONS: The current study suggests that although the soft palate may not be as elongated with nasal Z-plasty alone compared to the double Z-plasty, it sufficiently enables effective velopharyngeal closure.
METHODS: 116 cleft palate patients undergoing primary surgical repair were divided into two groups: those treated with the Sommerlad-Furlow method using a double-opposing Z-plasty (S.F.2.Z.P. group, n = 58) and those receiving a single nasal Z-plasty (S.F.1.Z.P. group, n = 58). Data on cleft type and width, soft palate length, palatal fistula, and velopharyngeal function were collected. Mann-Whitney test compared the mean values between groups.
RESULTS: The S.F.2ZP group demonstrated a statistically significant increase in soft palate length compared to those in the S.F.1ZP group (p = 0.008). However, the S.F.1ZP group demonstrated adequate soft palate length (7.9 ± 2.8 mm) compared to the S.F.2ZP group (9.3 ± 2.8 mm). The velopharyngeal function was good in both groups, with no significant differences (P = 0.52). While the proper velopharyngeal closure was 81% in the S.F.1ZP group and 87.9% in the S.F.2ZP group, velopharyngeal insufficiency was 10.3% and 5.2%, respectively. The rates of persistent palatal fistula were 5.2% in the S.F.1ZP group and 3.4% in the S.F.2ZP group, with no significant differences found between both groups (P = 0.64).
CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in crucial outcomes such as velopharyngeal function and the incidence of persistent palatal fistulas, indicating the effectiveness of both techniques. While the double-opposing Z-plasty demonstrated a statistically significant increase in soft palate length, the a nasal Z-plasty demonstrated adequate soft palate length which sufficiently enables effective velopharyngeal closure. These outcomes suggest that a single Z-plasty is both effective and easy to perform, making it a valuable surgical approach for achieving the desired outcomes..
CONCLUSIONS: The current study suggests that although the soft palate may not be as elongated with nasal Z-plasty alone compared to the double Z-plasty, it sufficiently enables effective velopharyngeal closure.
摘要：
背景：双相对Z-成形术是腭裂修复的基本方法。最近,一些外科医生已经开始实施单一的Z-Plasty，引发关于提高术后结局的最有效技术的讨论。因此,这项研究旨在评估在改良的Sommerlad-Furlow技术中使用单Z型和双Z型塑料的结果。
方法：将116例接受初次手术修复的腭裂患者分为两组：使用Sommerlad-Furlow方法使用双相对Z成形术治疗的患者（S.F.2.Z.P.组,n=58）和那些接受单次鼻Z成形术的人（S.F.1.Z.P.组,n=58）。裂隙类型和宽度的数据，软腭长度，腭瘘,收集咽喉功能。Mann-Whitney检验比较了组间的平均值。
结果：与S.F.1ZP组相比，S.F.2ZP组的软腭长度有统计学意义的增加（p=0.008）。然而,与S.F.2ZP组（9.3±2.8mm）相比，S.F.1ZP组表现出足够的软腭长度（7.9±2.8mm）。两组咽喉功能均良好,差异无统计学意义(P=0.52)。而在S.F.1ZP组和S.F.2ZP组,正确的咽喉闭合率为81%,咽喉功能不全分别为10.3%和5.2%,分别。S.F.1ZP组和S.F.2ZP组持续腭瘘的发生率分别为5.2%和3.4%,两组之间没有显着差异（P=0.64）。
结论：在关键结局方面没有显著差异，如咽喉功能和持续性腭瘘的发生率，表明这两种技术的有效性。虽然双相对Z型成形术显示了软腭长度的统计学显着增加，a鼻Z型成形术显示出足够的软腭长度，足以实现有效的咽喉闭合。这些结果表明，单个Z型成形术既有效又易于执行，使其成为实现预期结果的有价值的手术方法。.
结论：目前的研究表明，尽管与双Z成形术相比，单独使用鼻Z成形术可能不会使软腭伸长，它足以使有效的咽喉闭合。
方法：将116例接受初次手术修复的腭裂患者分为两组：使用Sommerlad-Furlow方法使用双相对Z成形术治疗的患者（S.F.2.Z.P.组,n=58）和那些接受单次鼻Z成形术的人（S.F.1.Z.P.组,n=58）。裂隙类型和宽度的数据，软腭长度，腭瘘,收集咽喉功能。Mann-Whitney检验比较了组间的平均值。
结果：与S.F.1ZP组相比，S.F.2ZP组的软腭长度有统计学意义的增加（p=0.008）。然而,与S.F.2ZP组（9.3±2.8mm）相比，S.F.1ZP组表现出足够的软腭长度（7.9±2.8mm）。两组咽喉功能均良好,差异无统计学意义(P=0.52)。而在S.F.1ZP组和S.F.2ZP组,正确的咽喉闭合率为81%,咽喉功能不全分别为10.3%和5.2%,分别。S.F.1ZP组和S.F.2ZP组持续腭瘘的发生率分别为5.2%和3.4%,两组之间没有显着差异（P=0.64）。
结论：在关键结局方面没有显著差异，如咽喉功能和持续性腭瘘的发生率，表明这两种技术的有效性。虽然双相对Z型成形术显示了软腭长度的统计学显着增加，a鼻Z型成形术显示出足够的软腭长度，足以实现有效的咽喉闭合。这些结果表明，单个Z型成形术既有效又易于执行，使其成为实现预期结果的有价值的手术方法。.
结论：目前的研究表明，尽管与双Z成形术相比，单独使用鼻Z成形术可能不会使软腭伸长，它足以使有效的咽喉闭合。
