Purpose: This study was planned to compare intravelar veloplasty versus Furlow double opposing z-plasty technique both
clinically and by magnetic resonance imaging regarding effectiveness in palatal reconstruction and future imoprovement of soft
palate function.
Materials & Methods: This is an interventional, comparative study that was carried out on 16 patients with cleft palate and
were divided randomly into two equal groups, Group I: included eight patients in whom soft palate cleft was repaired with
intravelar veloplasty,Group II: included eight patients in whom soft palate cleft was repaired with Furlow double opposing
z-plasty. All patients underwent regular follow up for six months for functional evaluation of the soft palate.
Results: Clinically, there was primary wound healing uneventfully was achieved in all patients in the two groups with no
signs of infection. No oronasal fistula was recorded in any case in the two groups. By magnetic resonance imaging, there
was effectiveness in palatal reconstruction and future imoprovement of soft palate function which reported from a significant
increase in soft palate length postoperatively in both groups with no significant differences between them, a significant decrease
in retropalatal ditance postoperatively in both groups with no significant differences between them and the cohesive sling
created by the two levator muscle bundles postoperatively in both groups.
Conclusion: There was no statistically significant differences clinically and by magnetic resonance imaging between intravelar
veloplasty and Furlow double opposing z-plasty technique.