Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 1, 2026
Endoscopic Septoplasty with Limited Two-line Resection: Minimally Invasive Surgery for Septal Deviation
Published on: June 20, 2018
Single vs. Double-Opposing Z-Plasty: Evaluating Their Impact on Palatoplasty Postoperative Outcomes
Sadam Ahmed Elayah1,2, Karim Ahmed Sakran2, Naseem Alawadhi2
1State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases & National Centre for Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, No. 14, Section 3 of Renmin Nan Road, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
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..
Clinical Relevance:
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.
