Incongruous Movements of the Velum and Lateral Pharyngeal Walls
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Incongruous Movements of the Velum and Lateral Pharyngeal Walls ROBERT J. SHPRINTZEN, Ph.D. SAUL J. RAKOFF, M.D. M. LEON SKOLNICK, M.D. ALFRED S. LAVORATO, Ph.D. Bronx, New York 10467 Five patients evaluated via multi-view videofluoroscopy were found to have incongruous movements between the velum and lateral aspects of the pharyngeal walls. All five patients had velopharyngeal insufficiency resulting from either absent lateral pharyngeal wall motion in the presence of velar mobility or absent velar mobility in the presence of lateral pharyngeal wall motion. The data indicates that these valving patterns are not rare phenomena of velopharyngeal valving. Treatment by pharyn- geal flap or other methods for velopharyngeal insufficiency must be suited to these peculiar valving patterns based on adequate diagnostic information. The physiology of velopharyngeal closure has been debated and questioned on numerous occasions and as is indicated by Dickson, et al. (1974): "Opinions regarding the specific muscles responsible for these patterns of movement are almost as numerous as authors who discuss them (p. 477)." A multiplicity of explanations have been offered in discussing the posterosuperior movement of the velum and medial movements of the lateral pharyngeal walls during speech. There is general agreement that the levator muscle is responsible for observed velar mobility (Dickson, et al., 1974), but the muscles contributing to movements of the pharyngeal walls remain a point of contention. The purpose of this paper is to present some case reports of subjects who showed unusual patterns of velopharyngeal valving which raise questions concerning the physiology of velopharyngeal closure and methods for treating velopharyngeal insufficiency. It must be empha- sized that the multi-view videofluoroscopic data presented below do not answer any existing questions but may aid in constructing further hy- potheses for future investigations. It has been well established that medial motion of the lateral pharyn- geal walls is essential to velopharyngeal closure (Calnan, 1953; Harring- Robert J. Shprintzen, Ph.D., is Co-ordinator and Deputy Director of the Center for Craniofacial Disorders at Montefiore Hospital and Medical Center, Bronx, N.Y., Adjunct Associate Professor of Speech Pathology at C. W. Post Center of Long Island University and at Kean College of New Jersey. Alfred S. Lavorato, Ph.D., is Supervisor of the Division of Speech Pathology in the Department of Audiology, Eye and Ear Hospital of Pittsburgh, and Research Associate at the University of Pittsburgh Cleft Palate Center. Saul J. Rakoff, M.D., is Associate Attending, Department of Radiology at Montefiore Hospital and Medical Center and Associate Professor of Radiology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. M. Leon Skolnick, M.D., is Associate Professor of Radiology at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. 148 Shprintzen et al., inconcruvous movements 149 ton, 1945; Skolnick, 1969; Takahasi, 1962). Medial motion of the pharyn- geal walls has been variously attributed to the salpingopharyngeus, levator, and superior constrictor muscles. While the salpingopharyn- geus has been described as a contributor to lateral pharyngeal wall movement (Bloomer, 1953; Harrington, 1944; Zemlin, 1968), more re- cent findings tend to indicate that the salpingopharyngeus is only incon- sistently present in man and typically not well defined nor large enough to account for such motion (Dickson and Dickson, 1972; Dickson, et al., 1974; McMyn, 1940; Strong, 1949). It has been hypothesized that the levator is the sole muscle of velopharyngeal closure, producing both velar and pharyngeal wall motion components (Dickson, 1972; Dickson and Dickson, 1972). Other reported data from multi-view fluoroscopic analyses (Shprintzen, et al., 1974; Shprintzen, et al., 1975b), electro- myography (Fritzell, 1969), and ultra-sonic studies (Ewanowski, et al., 1974; Zagzebski, 1975) would seem to indicate that there is a separate muscular component involved in lateral pharyngeal wall movement, most likely the superior constrictor. The present study was designed to evaluate the relationship between palatal and pharyngeal wall movements. Method |_ _- - SuBjEctTs. The subjects selected were five patients evaluated at the Center for Craniofacial Disorders of Montefiore Hospital and Medical Center. Each patient exhibited velopharyngeal incompetence (not nec- essarily cleft palate) and was chosen because he demonstrated what was considered to be an atypical pattern of velopharyngeal valving. The subjects included: (A) a four-year-old female, (B) a five-year-old male, (C) a five-year-old female, (D) a thirty-one-year-old male, and (E) a thirty-three-year-old male. ExPERIMENTAL PrRocEDURE. The VldCOflUOI‘OSCOplC procedure uti- lized to examine the subjects has been reported in detail elsewhere (Shprintzen, et al., 1975b; Skolnick, 1969). All subjects were examined in lateral, frontal, base, and left and right oblique projections. The subjects repeated a series of speech tasks designed to elicit speech in varying phonemic contexts and engaged in non-speech activities as well. The tasks used were: , ma-ma-ma-ma-ma ’ Kitty-cat pa-pa-pa-pa-pa Give Kate the cake ta-ta-ta-ta-ta Gerry's slippers ka-ka-ka-ka-ka Stop the bus ssssss (sustained /s/ phoneme) Catch a fish Suzie | One, two,. .. ., ten (counting to ten) Suzie sees Sally Blowing Popeye ' Whistling Popeye plays baseball Swallowing The total time under fluoroscopy was typically between two and three minutes with less than two rads irradiation. Resulting video images were recorded on a one-inch video tape recorder (Sony EV 210) and were 150 Cleft Palate Journal, April 1977, Vol. 14 No. 2 reviewed in full speed, slow motion, and stopped frames (60 visual fields per second) from a 14-inch TV monitor (Conrac) w1th a line scan rate of 945. Results SumBjEct A. Subject A was referred to the center at the age of four years, eight months, because of poor speech development secondary to a complete bilateral cleft lip and palate. She had had a one-stage lip repair at one month of age and a repair of the soft palate at 18 months of age at another institution. She had an unrepaired cleft of the hard palate which had never been obturated prosthetically. Her speech was charac- terized by severe hypernasal resonance, audible nasal air flow, and numerous articulatory omissions, distortions, and substitions. Much of her articulation was characterized by glottal stops. Language, however, was age appropriate. Multi-view videofluoroscopic examination showed fair mobility of the velum as observed in lateral view. However, no contact was made between the velum and either the posterior pharyn- geal wall or a small adenoid mass in the nasopharynx. No movement was observed in the posterior pharyngeal wall. The velum formed a velar eminence during speech, but a consistent two mm gap was observed between the velum and adenoid mass. Frontal view showed no observa- ble medial movement in the lateral pharyngeal walls. Base and left and right oblique views confirmed that the velum was moving but that the lateral pharyngeal walls were not (Figure 1). SumBpEct B. This five-year-old male subject was referred to the center at the age of four years, one month, because of a life-long history of hypernasal resonance and poor articulation in the absence of an overt or submucous cleft palate. Speech was severely hypernasal and articulation was characterized by numerous articulatory omissions, substitutions, REST / AND SPEECH LATERAL VIEW FRONTAL VIEW FIGURE 1. Videofluoroscopic tracings for Subject A showing velar motion in lateral view during speech but absence of lateral wall motion in frontal view. Shprintzen et al., INCONGRUOUS MOVEMENTS 151 and distortions, and glottal stops. Language skills were slightly de- pressed. Significant factors in his history included congenital hypothy- roidism and possible neurological impairment. (Neurological examina- tion was within normal limits, but psychometric evaluation revealed some specific learning disabilities.) Both gross and fine motor coordina- tion were within normal limits. Videofluoroscopic examination revealed that the velum was within normal limits in thickness and length, but there was no velar motion observed during speech in lateral view. No motion was observed in the posterior pharyngeal wall in lateral view , but in frontal view, excellent movement was observed in the lateral aspects of the pharyngeal walls as described by Shprintzen et al., (1975b) with a sharp shelf-like pattern at the level of the hard palate (Flgure 2). C. This five-year-old female child was referred to the center at the age of four years, ten months, by a neurologist because of a life- long history of hypernasal resonance in the absence of an overt or submucous cleft palate. Her speech was characterized by severe hyper- nasal resonance and numerous articulatory distortions and substitu- tions. Language skills were significantly disordered but had improved over the previous year. History was remarkable in that, at birth; follow- ing a full-term pregnancy, there was no sucking reflex until five days of age. All developmental landmarks were somewhat delayed, but by the age of four, she had no apparent deficits. All neurological examinations were negative and intelligence was within normal limits. Multi-view videofluoroscopic examination revealed a palate and nasopharynx of normal proportions. Lateral view showed some limited velar mobility in a posterosuperior direction. Velar contact was not made with a moder- ate sized adenoid mass nor with the posterior pharyngeal wall. In frontal Rest AMD [ SPEECH f est [| l SPEECH l | | | | | | . \ LATEML VIE FRONTAL VIEW FIGURE 2. Vldeofluoroscoplc tracings for Subject B showmg absence of velar motlon during speech in lateral view but good lateral wall movement in frontal view. 152 Cleft Palate Journal, April 1977, Vol. 14 No. 2 view, there was no demonstrable lateral pharyngeal wall motion, an observation which was confirmed in base and oblique views (Figure 3). - SuBpECT D. This thirty-one-year-old male was referred to the center at the age of thirty years, nine months, by a prosthodontist.