Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 3, 2026

Method of Studying Palatal Fusion using Static Organ Culture
Published on: September 19, 2015
Long term speech outcome post cleft palate repair in Kenya: Literature review
Adegu William1, Angela Muoki1, Stanley Khainga1
1Department of Surgery, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.
Background:
Cleft Palate (CP) refers to hereditary defects characterized by total or incomplete split in the roof of the mouth. CP represents malformations of unknown etiology but similar phenotypes. Besides the restoration of normal appearance and function to the palate, authorities have equally documented facilitation of normal speech as another important reason for cleft palate repair. There is a paucity of data locally on the long term speech outcome post CP repair.
Objective:
To determine the long term speech outcome post cleft palate repair in Kenya.
Methodology:
African Journals Online (AJOL), Google Scholar, PubMed, and Kenyan university repositories were among the databases used in a literature search. Studies that assessed speech outcomes in Kenyan populations at least a year after primary cleft palate repair were accepted. Both prospective and retrospective research were taken into account. Patient demographics, age at repair, surgical methods, length of follow-up, speech outcome measures, and availability of speech therapy services were among the data that was extracted.
Results:
Over 20 publications were included in the current study. The majority of studies found that speech results improved when repairs were made before the child was 18 months old. However, the evaluation of long-term results was found to be significantly hampered by the irregular availability of speech therapy, the absence of standardized instruments for speech evaluation, and the lack of follow-up.
Discussion:
Early cleft palate repair has been shown to improve long-term speech outcomes for patients globally, and the choice of technique may have an impact on velopharyngeal competence. Nonetheless, a notable deficiency still exists in the longitudinal, standardized evaluation of speech following repair. To enhance care and knowledge in the future, multicenter research must be encouraged, national cleft outcome registries must be established, and speech therapy infrastructure must be strengthened.
