To assess the relationship in ratings of velopharyngeal closure between connected speech and sustained speech, as visualized on nasopharyngoscopy.
Design
Prospective observational study.
Setting
Craniofacial clinics in the United States and Canada.
Participants
Fifty-two participants with velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) who underwent nasopharyngoscopy and produced both connected speech and sustained speech of either /i/or /s/ during the procedure.
Main outcome measure(s)
Correlations and differences between connected speech and sustained speech for velopharyngeal closure percentage, velar movement, lateral pharyngeal wall movement, and velopharyngeal closure pattern.
Results
There were moderate to very strong correlations observed between connected speech and sustained /i/ for velopharyngeal closure percentage (P < .01); extent of velar movement (P < .01), and left (P < .01) and right (P < .01) lateral pharyngeal wall movement. Findings were similar between connected speech and sustained /s/. Differences between ratings made during connected and sustained speech were small: for velopharyngeal closure percentage, there was a 5% difference in the mean between connected speech and sustained /i/ (77.5% vs 72.5%) and a 7% difference for /s/ (79.3% vs 86.7%). Overall differences across ratings ranged from 2% to 12%. Closure pattern was rated the same for both connected speech and sustained /i/ in 90% of videos (n = 44/49; P = .38) and the same for connected speech and sustained /s/ in 95% of videos (n = 42/44; P = 1.00).
Conclusions
Ratings of velopharyngeal movement during nasopharyngoscopy are similar between connected speech and sustained /i/ and /s/ suggesting elicitation of only sustained /i/ and /s/ may be adequate in most cases when assessment of connected speech is not possible.
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. doi:10.1597/10-285
3.
MasonKN. Magnetic resonance imaging for assessing velopharyngeal function: Current applications, barriers, and potential for future clinical translation in the United States. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2024;61(2):235‐246. doi:10.1177/10556656221123916
4.
WilliamsJLPerryJLSnodgrassTDSinghDJTemkitMSitzmanTJ. Can MRI replace nasopharyngoscopy in the evaluation of velopharyngeal insufficiency?Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2025;62(7):1093‐1102. doi:10.1177/10556656241239459
5.
SnodgrassTDSitzmanTJChee-WilliamsJLTemkitHPerryJL. Factors that limit evaluation of velopharyngeal closure during nasopharyngoscopy. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2025;62(2):300‐308. doi:10.1177/10556656241304224
6.
BezuhlyMFischbachSKlaimanPFisherDM. Impact of 22q deletion syndrome on speech outcomes following primary surgery for submucous cleft palate. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129(3):502e‐510e.
7.
D’AntonioLLMuntzHRMarshJLMarty-GramesLBackensto-MarshR. Practical application of flexible fiberoptic nasopharyngoscopy for evaluating velopharyngeal function. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1988;82(4):611‐618. doi:10.1097/00006534-198810000-00009
8.
ZhangBGuoCYinHZhengQShiBLiJ. The correlation between consonant articulation and velopharyngeal function in patients with unoperated submucous cleft palate. J Craniofac Surg. 2020;31(4):1070‐1073.
9.
LogjesRJvan den AardwegMTBlezerMMvan der HeulAMBreugemCC. Velopharyngeal insufficiency treated with levator muscle repositioning and unilateral myomucosal buccinator flap. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg. 2017;45(1):1‐7.
10.
GilbertSTJPigottRW. The feasibility of nasal pharyngoscopy using the 70° Storz-Hopkins nasopharyngoscope. Br J Plast Surg. 1982;35(1):14‐18.
11.
WattersonTMcFarlaneS. Transnasal videoendoscopy of the velopharyngeal port mechanism. Semin Speech Lang. 1990;11(01):27‐37. doi:10.1055/s-2008-1064239
12.
MasonKNGampperTBlackJ. Achieving clinical success in nonsedated velopharyngeal magnetic resonance imaging: Optimizing data quality and patient selection. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2025;155(3):562e‐572e.
13.
KotlarekKJSitzmanTJWilliamsJLPerryJL. Nonsedated magnetic resonance imaging for visualization of the velopharynx in the pediatric population. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2023;60(2):249‐252. doi:10.1177/10556656211057361
14.
KuehnDPMollerKT. Speech and language issues in the cleft palate population: The state of the art. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2000;37(4):1‐35. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_2000_037_0348_saliit_2.3.co_2
15.
TachimuraTHaraHWadaT. Oral air pressure and nasal air flow rate on levator veli palatini muscle activity in patients wearing a speech appliance. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 1995;32(5):382‐389. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_1995_032_0382_oapana_2.3.co_2
16.
TachimuraTNoharaKHaraHWadaT. Effect of placement of a speech appliance on levator veli palatini muscle activity during blowing. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 1999;36(3):224‐232. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_1999_036_0224_eopoas_2.3.co_2
17.
TachimuraTNoharaKWadaT. Effect of placement of a speech appliance on levator veli palatini muscle activity during speech. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2000;37(5):478‐482. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_2000_037_0478_eopoas_2.0.co_2
18.
TachimuraTNoharaKFujitaYHaraHWadaT. Change in levator veli palatini muscle activity of normal speakers in association with elevation of the velum using an experimental palatal lift prosthesis. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2001;38(5):449‐454. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_2001_038_0449_cilvpm_2.0.co_2
19.
PerryJLSnodgrassTDGilbertIR, et al.Establishing a clinical protocol for velopharyngeal MRI and interpreting imaging findings. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2024;61(5):748‐758. doi:10.1177/10556656221141188
20.
SieKCStarrJRBloomDC, et al.Multicenter interrater and intrarater reliability in the endoscopic evaluation of velopharyngeal insufficiency. Arch Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 2008;134(7):757‐763.
21.
D’AntonioLLMarshJLProvinceMAMuntzHRPhillipsCJ. Reliability of flexible fiberoptic nasopharyngoscopy for evaluation of velopharyngeal function in a clinical population. Cleft Palate J. 1989;26(3):217‐225.
22.
SitzmanTJBaylisALPerryJL, et al.Protocol for a prospective observational study of revision palatoplasty versus pharyngoplasty for treatment of velopharyngeal insufficiency following cleft palate repair. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2024;61(5):870‐881. doi:10.1177/10556656221147159
23.
Goldinq-Kushner KJ, Working Group Coordinator Participants, Argamaso RV, et al. Standardization for the reporting of nasopharyngoscopy and multiview videofluoroscopy: A report from an international working group. Cleft Palate J. 1990;27(4):337‐348. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_1990_027_0337_sftron_2.3.co_2
24.
SchoberPBoerCSchwarteLA. Correlation coefficients: Appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth Analg. 2018;126(5):1763‐1768.
25.
PerryJLKollaraLKuehnDPSuttonBPFangX. Examining age, sex, and race characteristics of velopharyngeal structures in 4- to 9-year-old children using magnetic resonance imaging. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2018;55(1):21‐34. doi:10.1177/1055665617718549
26.
PerkinsJALewisCWGrussJSEblenLESieKCY. Furlow palatoplasty for management of velopharyngeal insufficiency: A prospective study of 148 consecutive patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;116(1):72‐80. doi:10.1097/01.PRS.0000169694.29082.69
27.
ChimHEshraghiYIamphongsaiSGosainAK. Double-opposing Z-palatoplasty for secondary surgical management of velopharyngeal incompetence in the absence of a primary furlow palatoplasty. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2015;52(5):517‐524. doi:10.1597/13-187
28.
YsunzaPARepettoGMPamplonaMC, et al.Current controversies in diagnosis and management of cleft palate and velopharyngeal insufficiency. BioMed Res Int. 2015; 2015. Accessed October 30, 2023. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2015/196240/abs/.
29.
VaragurKChryssofosSDouglasTO, et al.Characterizing age at velopharyngeal dysfunction in patients with cleft palates. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2025;102:123‐130.
30.
KollaraLPerryJL. Effects of gravity on the velopharyngeal structures in children using upright magnetic resonance imaging. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2014;51(6):669‐676. doi:10.1597/13-107
31.
KollaraLPerryJLHudsonS. Racial variations in velopharyngeal and craniometric morphology in children: An imaging study. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2016;59(1):27‐38. doi:10.1044/2015_JSLHR-S-14-0236
32.
KollaraLBaylisALKirschnerRE, et al.Velopharyngeal structural and muscle variations in children with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome: An unsedated MRI study. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2019;56(9):1139‐1148. doi:10.1177/1055665619851660
33.
WilliamsJLPerryJLBuntonK, et al.Velopharyngeal gap size during sustained vowel production correlates with perceptual ratings of hypernasality in connected speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2024;67(9):2977‐2986. doi:10.1044/2024_JSLHR-24-00221
34.
PerryJLKinterSWilliamsJLSnodgrassTDSitzmanTJ. Does notching along the nasal velar surface during nasopharyngoscopy predict discontinuity of the underlying levator veli palatini muscle?Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2024;61(7):1096‐1103. doi:10.1177/10556656231161991
35.
MaLShiBLiYZhengQ. Velopharyngeal function assessment in patients with cleft palate: Perceptual speech assessment versus nasopharyngoscopy. J Craniofac Surg. 2013;24(4):1229‐1231.
