Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Assessing Velopharyngeal Function: Current Applications,Barriers,and Potential for Future Clinical Translation in the United States
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 2024
Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Assessing Velopharyngeal Function: Current Applications,Barriers,and Potential for Future Clinical Translation in the United States
The use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the assessment process for children with cleft/craniofacial conditions remains uncommon, particularly for velopharyngeal assessments. The purpose of this study was to analyze the perceived clinical utility of MRI for cleft/craniofacial providers and identify barriers that exist for clinical translation of this imaging modality to this population of patients.
Methods
A 38-item survey was disseminated to craniofacial team providers. Workplace context and demographics, MRI as a research and clinical tool, access and barriers for use of MRI, and needs for successfully establishing MRI protocols at clinical sites were investigated. Descriptive statistics were used to identify differences in the clinical use of MRI across disciplines. Chi-square analyses were conducted to determine how different specialties perceived potential barriers.
Results
Respondents reported that MRI is likely to be beneficial for clinical assessments (93.5%) and that this imaging modality is available for use (83.8%). However, only 11.8% of providers indicated the use of MRI in their clinical assessments. This discrepancy highlights a potential disconnect between perceived use and implementation of this imaging methodology on cleft and craniofacial teams. A number of barriers were identified by providers. Challenges and opportunities for clinical translation of MRI protocols were highlighted.
Conclusion
Results may guide the development for improved clinical feasibility and implementation of MRI for clinical planning in this population of patients. Reported barriers highlight additional areas for translational research and the potential for the development of clinical tools related to MRI assessment and protocol implementation.
KummerAWClarkSLRedleEEThomsenLLBillmireDA. Current practice in assessing and reporting speech outcomes of cleft palate and velopharyngeal surgery: a survey of cleft palate/craniofacial professionals. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2012;49(2):146-152.
2.
SkolnickMLCohnER. Videofluoroscopic Studies of Speech in Patients With Cleft Palate. Springer Science & Business Media; 2012.
3.
WitzelMStringerD. Methods of assessing velopharyngeal function. Multidisciplinary Management of Cleft Lip and Palate. Philadelphia: WB Saunders. 1990:763-776.
4.
HessUHannigCSaderRCavallaroAWuttge-HannigAZeilhoferH. Evaluation of velopharyngeal closure in preoperative planning of maxillary advancement. Rontgenpraxis. 1996;49(2):25-26.
5.
KuehnDPMollerKT. Speech and language issues in the cleft palate population: the state of the art. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2000;37(4):1-35.
6.
BicknellSMcFaddenLRCurranJB. Frequency of pharyngoplasty after primary repair of cleft palate. J Can Dent Assoc. 2002;68(11):688-692.
7.
KaneAAButmanJAMullickRSkopecMChoykeP. A new method for the study of velopharyngeal function using gated magnetic resonance imaging. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;109(2):472-481.
8.
PigottR. An analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of endoscopic and radiological investigations of velopharyngeal incompetence based on a 20 year experience of simultaneous recording. Br J Plas tSurg. 2002;55(1):32-34.
9.
WittPDMarshJLMcFarlandEGRiskiJE. The evolution of velopharyngeal imaging. Ann Plast Surg. 2000;45(6):665-673.
10.
PerryJLSuttonBPKuehnDPGamageJK. Using MRI for assessing velopharyngeal structures and function. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2014;51(4):476-485.
11.
MasonKPerryJ. The use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the study of the velopharynx. Perspect ASHA Special Interest Groups. 2017;2(5):35-52.
12.
van BeekEJRKuhlCAnzaiY, et al.Value of MRI in medicine: more than just another test?J Magn Reson Imaging.2019;49(7):e14-e25.
13.
PerryJLKuehnDP. Magnetic resonance imaging and computer reconstruction of the velopharyngeal mechanism. J Craniofac Surg. 2009;20(8):1739-1746.
14.
MasonKNRiskiJEWilliamsJKJonesRAPerryJL. Utilization of 3D MRI for the evaluation of sphincter pharyngoplasty insertion site in patients with velopharyngeal dysfunction. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.Published online September 27, 2021. 10556656211044656
15.
AkgünerMKaracaCBarutçuAÖzaksoyDYurtAVayvadaH. Evaluation of velopharyngeal pathophysiology and velopharyngeal insufficiency with magnetic resonance imaging. J Plastic Surg. 1998;21(3):118-123.
16.
SilverALNimkinKAshlandJE, et al.Cine magnetic resonance imaging with simultaneous audio to evaluate pediatric velopharyngeal insufficiency. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.2011;137(3):258-263.
17.
MaturoSSilverANimkinK, et al.MRI With synchronized audio to evaluate velopharyngeal insufficiency. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2012;49(6):761-763.
18.
DrissiCMitrofanoffMTalandierCFalipCLe CoulsVAdamsbaumC. Feasibility of dynamic MRI for evaluating velopharyngeal insufficiency in children. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(7):1462-1469.
19.
KotlarekKJSitzmanTJWilliamsJLPerryJL. Nonsedated magnetic resonance imaging for visualization of the velopharynx in the pediatric population. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.Published online November 17, 2021. 10556656211057360
20.
HaensslerAEFangXPerryJL. Effective velopharyngeal ratio: a more clinically relevant measure of velopharyngeal function. J Speech Lang Hear Res.2020;63(11):3586-3593.
21.
SchenckGCPerryJLFangX. Normative velopharyngeal data in infants: implications for treatment of cleft palate. J Craniofac Surg. 2016;27(6):1430-1439.
22.
KuehnDPEttemaSLGoldwasserMSBarkmeierJCWachtelJM. Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of occult submucous cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2001;38(5):421-431.
23.
DescampsMJLGoldingSJSibleyJMcIntyreAAlveyCGoodacreT. MRI For definitive in utero diagnosis of cleft palate: a useful adjunct to antenatal care?Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2010;47(6):578-585.
24.
RosenHChiouGJStolerJM, et al.Magnetic resonance imaging for detection of brain abnormalities in fetuses with cleft lip and/or cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2011;48(5):619-622.
25.
ShinagawaHOnoTHondaEI, et al.Dynamic analysis of articulatory movement using magnetic resonance imaging movies: methods and implications in cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2005;42(3):225-230.
Hardin-JonesMJonesDLDolezalRC. Opinions of speech-language pathologists regarding speech management for children with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2020;57(1):55-64.
30.
CohenJ. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Academic Press; 2013.
31.
Parameters for evaluation and treatment of patients with cleft lip/palate or other craniofacial differences. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2018;55(1):137-156.
KollaraLPerryJL. Effects of gravity on the velopharyngeal structures in children using upright magnetic resonance imaging. Cleft Palate CraniofacJ. 2014;51(6):669-676.
35.
SuttonBPConwayCABaeYSeethamrajuRKuehnDP. Faster dynamic imaging of speech with field inhomogeneity corrected spiral fast low angle shot (FLASH) at 3 T. J Magn Reson Imaging.2010;32(5):1228-1237.
36.
BaeYKuehnDPConwayCASuttonBP. Real-time magnetic resonance imaging of velopharyngeal activities with simultaneous speech recordings. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2011;48(6):695-707.
37.
PerryJLHaensslerAEKotlarekKJ, et al.Does the type of MRI sequence influence perceived quality and measurement consistency in investigations of the anatomy of the velopharynx?Cleft Palate Craniofac J.Published online June 22, 2021. 10556656211025192
38.
PerryJLMasonKSuttonBPKuehnDP. Can dynamic MRI be used to accurately identify velopharyngeal closure patterns?Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2018;55(4):499-507. 1055665617735998
39.
KollaraLSchenckGJaskolkaMPerryJL. Examining a new method to studying velopharyngeal structures in a child with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. J Speech Lang Hear Res.2017;60(4):892-896.
40.
PerryJL. Variations in velopharyngeal structures between upright and supine positions using upright magnetic resonance imaging. Cleft PalateCraniofacJ. 2011;48(2):123-133.
41.
BettensKWuytsFLVan LierdeKM. Instrumental assessment of velopharyngeal function and resonance: a review. J Commun Disord.2014;52:170-183.
42.
ScottADBoubertakhRBirchMJMiquelME. Towards clinical assessment of velopharyngeal closure using MRI: evaluation of real-time MRI sequences at 1.5 and 3 T. Br J Radiol. 2012;85(1019):e1083-e1092.
43.
SuttonBPConwayCBaeYBrinegarCLiangZPKuehnDP. Dynamic imaging of speech and swallowing with MRI. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2009;2009:6651-6654.
44.
GordanVV. Translating research into everyday clinical practice: lessons learned from a USA dental practice-based research network. Dent Mater.2013;29(1):3-9.
45.
JaimesCRobsonCDMachado-RivasF, et al.Success of nonsedated neuroradiologic MRI in children 1–7 years old. Am J Roentgenol.2021;216(5):1370-1377.
46.
MasonKNPerryJLRiskiJEFangX. Age-Related changes between the level of velopharyngeal closure and the cervical spine. J Craniofac Surg. 2016;27(2):498-503.
47.
SchenckGCPerryJLO’GaraMM, et al.Velopharyngeal muscle morphology in children with unrepaired submucous cleft palate: an imaging study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2021;58(3):313-323.
48.
MasonKPerryJ. Relationship between age and diagnosis on volumetric and linear velopharyngeal measures in the cleft and noncleft populations. J Craniofac Surg. 2016;27(5):1340-1345.
49.
KollaraLPerryJLHudsonS. Racial variations in velopharyngeal and craniometric morphology in children: an imaging study. J Speech Lang Hear Res.2016;59(1):27-38.
50.
KollaraLBaylisALKirschnerRE, et al.Velopharyngeal structural and muscle variations in children with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome: an unsedated MRI study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2019;56(9):1139-1148.
51.
FenlonHMNunesDPSchroyPCBarishMAClarkePDFerrucciJT. A comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. N Engl J Med.1999;341(20):1496-1503.
52.
BeerAJHellerhoffPZimmermannA, et al.Dynamic near-real-time magnetic resonance imaging for analyzing the velopharyngeal closure in comparison with videofluoroscopy. J Magn Reson Imaging.2004;20(5):791-797.
53.
PerryJLKuehnDPSuttonBPGamageJK. Sexual dimorphism of the levator veli palatini muscle: an imaging study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2014;51(5):544-552. doi:10.1597/12-128
54.
BaeYKuehnDPSuttonBPConwayCAPerryJL. Three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging of velopharyngeal structures. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011;54(6):1538-1545.
55.
KotlarekKJPerryJLFangX. Morphology of the levator veli palatini muscle in adults with repaired cleft palate. J Craniofac Surg. 2017;28(3):833-837.
56.
PerryJLKuehnDPSuttonBPFangX. Velopharyngeal structural and functional assessment of speech in young children using dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2017;54(4):408-422.
57.
TianWYinHLiYZhaoSZhengQShiB. Magnetic resonance imaging assessment of velopharyngeal structures in Chinese children after primary palatal repair. J Craniofac Surg. 2010;21(2):568-577.
58.
HodginsNHooCMcGeePHillC. A survey of assessment and management of velopharyngeal incompetence (VPI) in the UK and Ireland. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg.2015;68(4):485-491.
SheehanKBHoyMG. Using E-mail to survey internet users in the United States: methodology and assessment. J Comput Mediat Commun.1999;4(3):JCMC435.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
