The Usefulness of the Voiced Blowing Test in the Evaluation of Velopharyngeal Closure Function

• Published in: Journal of Japanese Cleft Palate Association Vol. 38; no. 1; pp. 90 - 96
• Main Authors: KATO, Kogo, KITANO, Ichiko, SUZUKI, Ai, SUSAM, Park
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: Japanese
• Published: Japanese Cleft Palate Association 25.04.2013; 一般社団法人 日本口蓋裂学会
• Subjects: blowing; velopharyngeal closure function; voiced blowing; 有声blowing; 鼻咽腔閉鎖機能
• ISSN: 0386-5185; 2186-5701
• DOI: 10.11224/cleftpalate.38.90

[Purpose] The authors studied whether confirming nasal emission during voiced blowing (VB) was useful for judging velopharyngeal closure function (VPF). [Object] The subjects were 212 patients (98 male, 114 female) who underwent evaluations after palatoplasty from December 2010 to June 2012. The age at evaluation was 10 ± 4 years old and those with mental disabilities, the 22.11q deletion syndrome, hearing loss and remaining fistula were excluded. For these, we evaluated once to multiple times, and there were 363 cases in total. The rating system followed the cleft palate laboratory procedure of the Japanese Association of Communication Disorders and also the presence of nasal emission during VB. [Results] (1) The number of cases in which nasal emission was not observed by both blowing and VB was 250 out of 363 cases, and the general judgment of VPF was normal in 207 cases, extremely slight VPI in 38, and slight VPI in five. (2) Nasal emission was not seen in blowing but was seen in VB in 54 cases, and VPF was normal in 19 cases, extremely slight VPI in 28, and slight VPI in seven. There was a significant difference between group (1) and (2) by the chi-square test in the determination results of VPF. (3) Nasal emission was seen only in blowing but not in VB in four cases, and every case showed extremely slight VPI. (4) Nasal emission was observed both in blowing and in VB in 55 cases, extremely slight VPI in 40, slight VPI in nine, and VPI in six. (5) In cases in which a successive change could be followed, nasal emission in VB seemed to be some kind of indication of later VPI. [Discussion] It seems to be the mechanism of velopharyngeal closure function in VB was nearer to speech production, and it was thought that there was usefulness to supplement the VPF judgment of the case that nasal emission was not recognized in blowing. Furthermore, the possibility that it was the sign which turned worse was suggested when nasal emission was recognized in VB even if thought that VPF was good.