Literature DB >> 11994576

Midface distraction following Le Fort III and monobloc osteotomies: problems and solutions.

Arun K Gosain1, Timothy D Santoro, Robert J Havlik, Steven R Cohen, Ralph E Holmes.   

Abstract

Distraction osteogenesis has been used increasingly for midfacial advancement in patients with syndromic craniosynostosis and in severe developmental hypoplasia of the midface. In these patients, the degree of advancement required is often so great that restriction of the adjacent soft tissues may preclude stable advancement in one stage. Whereas distraction is an ideal solution by which to gradually lengthen both the bones and the soft tissues, potential problems remain in translating the distraction forces to the midface. In these patients, severe developmental hypoplasia may be associated with weak union between the zygoma and the maxilla, increasing the chance of zygomaticomaxillary dysjunction when using internal devices that translate distraction force to the maxilla through the zygoma. Eight cases are reported in which either internal or external distraction systems were used for midface advancement following Le Fort III (n = 7) or monobloc (n = 1) osteotomies. Cases of patients in whom hypoplasia at the zygomaticomaxillary junction altered or impaired plans for midface distraction were reported from three host institutions. Seven patients had midface hypoplasia associated with syndromic craniosynostosis, and one patient had severe developmental midface hypoplasia. The distraction protocol was modified to successfully complete midface advancement in light of weakness at the zygomaticomaxillary junction in seven patients. Modifications included change from an internal to an external distraction system in two patients, rigid fixation and bone graft stabilization of the midface in one patient, and plate stabilization of a fractured or unstable zygomaticomaxillary junction followed by resumption of internal distraction in four patients. Previous infection and bone loss involving both malar complexes precluded one patient from being a candidate for an internal distraction system. Using a problem-based approach, successful advancement of the midface ranging from 9 to 26 mm at the occlusal level as measured by preoperative and postoperative cephalograms was undergone by all patients. Advantages and disadvantages of the respective distraction systems are reviewed to better understand unique patient characteristics leading to the successful use of these devices for correction of severe midface hypoplasia.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11994576     DOI: 10.1097/00006534-200205000-00004

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


  16 in total

1.  Prevalence and complications of single-gene and chromosomal disorders in craniosynostosis.

Authors:  Andrew O M Wilkie; Jo C Byren; Jane A Hurst; Jayaratnam Jayamohan; David Johnson; Samantha J L Knight; Tracy Lester; Peter G Richards; Stephen R F Twigg; Steven A Wall
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2010-07-19       Impact factor: 7.124

2.  Guideline for Care of Patients With the Diagnoses of Craniosynostosis: Working Group on Craniosynostosis.

Authors:  Irene M J Mathijssen
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 1.046

3.  Three-Dimensional Cephalometric Analysis of Orbital Morphology Modification for Midface Correction Surgery.

Authors:  Tomasz Smektala; Ewelina Staniszewska; Agata Sławińska; Katarzyna Sporniak-Tutak; Marcin Tutak; Marcin Jędrzejewski; Małgorzata Chrusciel-Nogalska; Raphael Olszewski
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2015-08-21

4.  Distraction vs remodeling surgery for craniosynostosis.

Authors:  Seong-Woong Kim; Kyu-Won Shim; Nick Plesnila; Yong-Oock Kim; Joong-Uhn Choi; Dong-Seok Kim
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2006-10-13       Impact factor: 1.475

5.  An Update on Midface Advancement Using Le Fort II and III Distraction Osteogenesis.

Authors:  Youssef Tahiri; Jesse Taylor
Journal:  Semin Plast Surg       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 2.314

Review 6.  Distraction osteogenesis in the surgical treatment of craniostenosis: a comparison of internal and external craniofacial distractor devices.

Authors:  S Pelo; G Gasparini; A Di Petrillo; G Tamburrini; C Di Rocco
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2007-09-18       Impact factor: 1.475

7.  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

8.  Indication for and surgical outcomes of the distraction method in various types of craniosynostosis. Advantages, disadvantages, and current concepts for surgical strategy in the treatment of craniosynostosis.

Authors:  Yuichiro Nonaka; Shizuo Oi; Takeshi Miyawaki; Akihiko Shinoda; Kunihiro Kurihara
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2004-05-27       Impact factor: 1.475

9.  Advanced "tactile" medical imaging for separation surgeries of conjoined twins.

Authors:  Andrew M Christensen; Stephen M Humphries; Keith Y C Goh; Dale Swift
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2004-07-22       Impact factor: 1.475

10.  Pediatric craniofacial surgery for craniosynostosis: Our experience and current concepts: Parts -2.

Authors:  Y N Anantheswar; N K Venkataramana
Journal:  J Pediatr Neurosci       Date:  2009-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.