Buccal Fat Pad in Primary and Secondary Cleft Palate Repair: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Romero-Narvaez C.; Lin L.O.; Kirschner R.E. · Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal (2025) · DOI: 10.1177/10556656231206238

Resumen

Objective: To review the evidence supporting the use of buccal fat pad (BFP) in primary and secondary cleft palate repair and its short- and long- term clinical outcomes. Design: Systematic review conducted by 2 independent reviewers following PRISMA guidelines. Setting: None Participants: Articles were identified from three databases (Pubmed/Medline, Embase and Web of Science). Search terms included “cleft palate”, “palatoplasty”, “palate repair”, “buccal fat pad”. Interventions: Use of BFP in primary and secondary cleft palatoplasty. Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcomes were immediate postoperative complications, postoperative fistula, and maxillary growth. Secondary outcomes were palatal length, speech, and donor site morbidity. Results: Ninety-one reports were retrieved after excluding duplicates. Twenty-three studies were included (13 case series and 10 comparative studies). Overall level of evidence was low. Randomized and non-randomized studies had a high risk of bias. In primary palatoplasty, BFP was more frequently used filling lateral relaxing incisions(57.4%), or in the hard-soft palate junction and covering mucosal defects(30.1%). In these patients, post operative fistula incidence was 2.8%. Two studies found wider transverse maxillary dimensions after BFP use. No higher incidence of bleeding, infection, dehiscence, or flap necrosis was reported. In secondary palatoplasty, no recurrent fistulas were reported for patients undergoing BFP for fistula repair. Conclusions: BFP appears to be associated with a favorable impact in fistula prevention and management, as well as in transverse maxillary growth. However, there is a high heterogeneity among studies, high risk of bias and overall low quality of evidence. More high-quality research with long-term follow-up is warranted.