Literature DB >> 10323692

Craniofacial distraction with a modular internal distraction system: evolution of design and surgical techniques.

S R Cohen1.   

Abstract

The present report summarizes the evolution of design for a modular internal distraction system that is applicable throughout the craniofacial region. Eleven patients (5 boys, 6 girls), whose ages ranged from 4 months to 10 years at the time of distraction, constitute the basis for this study. The clinical indications for distraction were exorbitism with corneal exposure (n = 1), obstructive sleep apnea (n = 4), tracheostomy decannulation (n = 1), severe maxillary hypoplasia with class III malocclusion (n = 3), severe vertical and sagittal maxillary deficiency with anophthalmia (n = 1), and relapse following frontoorbital advancement in a case of rare craniofacial clefting (n = 1). Twenty-two distraction devices were used in these 11 patients. Two initial prototypes were tested (prototype 1 = 8 devices; prototype 2 = 2 devices) until the modular internal distraction system (MIDS, Howmedica-Leibinger, Inc.) was developed (n = 12 devices). The craniofacial osteotomies used were Le Fort III (n = 4), monobloc (n = 3), mandibular (n = 3), Le Fort I (n = 2), and cranial (n = 1). The distraction distances ranged from 11 to 28 mm. One patient undergoing mandibular distraction developed transient swelling in the left mandibular region, which responded to antibiotics. There were no other complications. Depending on the age of the patient and the length of distraction, the distraction gap was allowed to consolidate from 6 weeks to 3 months. The devices were then removed on either an outpatient or a 23-hour-stay basis. The modular internal distraction system permits widespread application of easily customizable, buried distraction devices throughout the craniofacial region.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10323692     DOI: 10.1097/00006534-199905060-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  8 in total

1.  Management of Cleft Maxillary Hypoplasia with Anterior Maxillary Distraction: Our Experience.

Authors:  Tojan Chacko; Sankar Vinod; Varghese Mani; Arun George; K K Sivaprasad
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2013-04-24

2.  Study of Distracted Bone in Maxilla: A Comparative Analysis.

Authors:  Rohan Thomas Mathew; Mustafa Khader; Shehzana Fathima; B H Sripathi Rao
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2017-02-08

Review 3.  A review of reconstructive materials for use in craniofacial surgery bone fixation materials, bone substitutes, and distractors.

Authors:  James Tait Goodrich; Adam L Sandler; Oren Tepper
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2012-08-08       Impact factor: 1.475

4.  Correction of midface deficiency using intra-oral distraction device.

Authors:  Suresh Menon; Ramen Sinha; Ravi Manerikar; S K Roy Chowdhury
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2010-06-04

5.  Maxillary distraction osteogenesis at Le Fort-I level induces bone apposition at infraorbital rim.

Authors:  Vidya Rattan; Ashok Kumar Jena; Satinder Pal Singh; Ashok Kumar Utreja
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2013-11-26       Impact factor: 3.573

6.  A osteogenesis distraction device enabling control of vertical direction for syndromic craniosynostosis.

Authors:  Shinji Kobayashi; Toshihiko Fukawa; Takashi Hirakawa; Jiro Maegawa
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2014-03-06

7.  Corrected Cephalometric Analysis to Determine the Distance and Vector of Distraction Osteogenesis for Syndromic Craniosynostosis.

Authors:  Shinji Kobayashi; Toshihiko Fukawa; Takashi Hirakawa; Toshihiko Satake; Jiro Maegawa
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2017-09-06

8.  Long-term results of surgically assisted maxillary protraction vs regular facemask.

Authors:  Sirin Nevzatoğlu; Nazan Küçükkeleş
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2014-03-21       Impact factor: 2.079

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.