Literature DB >> 15168051

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.

Yuichiro Nonaka1, Shizuo Oi, Takeshi Miyawaki, Akihiko Shinoda, Kunihiro Kurihara.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Various surgical techniques for the treatment of craniosynostosis using distraction devices have been described over the last few years and we have applied these procedures in seven patients with varying types of craniosynostosis. The aim of this report is to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of these surgical methods and to discuss current concepts for the surgical strategy in the treatment of craniosynostosis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: From January 2001 to March 2003, 25 patients with craniosynostosis were examined. Among them, 7 patients, 5 with Apert syndrome, 1 with Crouzon disease, and 1 with multiple-synostosis, underwent surgical treatment using the distraction method with internal distraction devices, according to our treatment strategy for craniosynostosis. All patients underwent preoperative and postoperative evaluations, which included the patient's neurological state, developmental quotient (DQ), and three-dimensional CT (3D-CT).
RESULTS: The timing of the procedures undertaken was between the ages of 1 year 5 months and 12 years 6 months (mean age 4 years 11 months). Five patients had received previous treatment and this procedure was used as a secondary operation. Postoperative distraction distances varied from 7 to 20.5 mm (mean distraction distance: 14 mm). Satisfactory cranial volume expansion and aesthetically pleasing morphological states were achieved in all cases. Regarding complications, one patient required re-operation because of dislocation of the device and skin erosion caused by infection around the penetrated wound. Finally, in a second patient a distortion of the device occurred, but no re-operation was needed.
CONCLUSION: The advantage of the distraction method is its applicability for Toddler or Elder Children Calvarial Reconstruction to correct cosmetic and functional problems. One disadvantage is the difficulty in using it for Infantile Calvarial Normalization because of thin calvarial bones and the necessity for re-operation to remove the device, which may result in it becoming a "fixation procedure," essentially contraindicated for the fast-developing brain and calvarias. However, the efficacy of this procedure is that the many advantages outweigh the disadvantages as sufficient calvarial expansion and good results using the distraction method, especially in toddler and elder children age groups, can be achieved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15168051     DOI: 10.1007/s00381-004-0917-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst        ISSN: 0256-7040            Impact factor:   1.475


  19 in total

1.  Midfacial advancement by bone distraction for treatment of craniofacial deformities.

Authors:  N Alonso; A M Munhoz; W Fogaça; M C Ferreira
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 1.046

2.  Lengthening the human mandible by gradual distraction.

Authors:  J G McCarthy; J Schreiber; N Karp; C H Thorne; B H Grayson
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 4.730

Review 3.  Management of craniosynostoses.

Authors:  D Renier; E Lajeunie; E Arnaud; D Marchac
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 1.475

4.  Management of severe maxillary deficiency in childhood and adolescence through distraction osteogenesis with an external, adjustable, rigid distraction device.

Authors:  J W Polley; A A Figueroa
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 1.046

5.  Monobloc and facial bipartition distraction with internal devices.

Authors:  S R Cohen; W Boydston; R Hudgins; F D Burstein
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 1.046

6.  Cranial remodeling to treat craniosynostosis by gradual distraction using a new device.

Authors:  Keisuke Imai; Hiroyuki Komune; Chiaya Toda; Takeru Nomachi; Eiji Enoki; Hiroaki Sakamoto; Shohei Kitano; Mitsuo Hatoko; Takuya Fujimoto
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 5.115

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

Authors:  Arun K Gosain; Timothy D Santoro; Robert J Havlik; Steven R Cohen; Ralph E Holmes
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.730

8.  Three-dimensional cranial expansion using distraction osteogenesis for oxycephaly.

Authors:  Tetsuji Uemura; Takashi Hayashi; Kaneshige Satoh; Nobuyuki Mitsukawa; Atsushige Yoshikawa; Tadayuki Suse; Yoshihiko Furukawa
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 1.046

9.  Trigonocephaly (metopic synostosis). Clinical, surgical and anatomical concepts.

Authors:  S Oi; S Matsumoto
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 1.475

10.  Advancement of the orbits and the midface in one piece, combined with frontal repositioning, for the correction of Crouzon's deformities.

Authors:  F Ortiz-Monasterio; A F del Campo; A Carrillo
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1978-04       Impact factor: 4.730

View more
  9 in total

1.  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

2.  Abducens Nerve Palsy Following Expansion Cranioplasty with Distraction Osteogenesis.

Authors:  Hyungyu Yoo; Seung Ah Chung; Soo Han Yoon
Journal:  Neuroophthalmology       Date:  2014-10-09

3.  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

4.  Immediate spontaneous shape correction using expantile zigzag craniectomy in infantile scaphocephaly -is there an improvement in the developmental quotient following surgery?-.

Authors:  Sang-Dae Kim; Shizuo Oi
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2011-03-31

5.  Cranial distraction osteogenesis: a proposal of minimal consolidation period.

Authors:  Jung Won Choi; Ji Yeoun Lee; Ji Hoon Phi; Seung-Ki Kim; Tae Hyun Choi; Sukwha Kim; Kyu-Chang Wang
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2014-12-14       Impact factor: 1.475

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.  Utilization of a Simple Surgical Guide for Multidirectional Cranial Distraction Osteogenesis in Craniosynostosis.

Authors:  Chihiro Matsui; Eijiro Tokuyama; Takaya Senoo; Kiyoshi Yamada; Masahiro Kameda; Tetsuo Takeuchi; Yoshihiro Kimata
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2020-04-29

Review 8.  Distraction Osteogenesis Update: Introduction of Multidirectional Cranial Distraction Osteogenesis.

Authors:  Akira Gomi; Ataru Sunaga; Hideaki Kamochi; Hirofumi Oguma; Yasushi Sugawara
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2016-05-10

Review 9.  Physiological Changes and Clinical Implications of Syndromic Craniosynostosis.

Authors:  Hiroaki Sakamoto; Yasuhiro Matsusaka; Noritsugu Kunihiro; Keisuke Imai
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2016-05-10
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.