Literature DB >> 21311385

Long-term outcomes of primary craniofacial reconstruction for craniosynostosis: a 12-year experience.

Mitchel Seruya1, Albert K Oh, Michael J Boyajian, Jeffrey C Posnick, John S Myseros, Amanda L Yaun, Robert F Keating.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to critically assess long-term outcomes after open reconstruction of craniosynostosis within the recent decade.
METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective, institutional review board-approved review of open repair for craniosynostosis between 1997 and 2009. Surgical factors, complications, and long-term outcomes were assessed. Pearson chi-square, Fisher's exact, and Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed.
RESULTS: Of 212 patients, 72 underwent primary extended synostectomy and 140 had traditional open craniofacial repair. Mean follow-up was 36.3 months (range, 0.5 to 138 months). Indications included sagittal (n = 96), metopic (n = 40), unicoronal (n = 33), bicoronal (n = 24), multisutural (n = 15), bilambdoidal (n = 3), and unilambdoidal (n = 1) synostoses; 8.5 percent of patients were syndromic. Surgical reconstruction was performed at a mean age of 11.3 months (range, 0.2 to 117.8 months), including nonsyndromic patients at an average age of 10.6 months and syndromic patients at age 19.3 months. There were no deaths. A 3.3 percent complication rate included two cerebral contusions, two hematomas, one cerebrospinal fluid leak, one infection, and one wound breakdown. Patients were categorized as 89.2 percent Whitaker class I/II and 10.8 percent Whitaker class III/IV. Major and total reoperation rates were 9.0 percent and 10.8 percent, respectively. Higher total reoperation rate and Whitaker class III/IV distribution significantly correlated with syndromic diagnosis, bicoronal synostosis, and surgical age younger than 6 months.
CONCLUSIONS: In this experience of contemporary open craniosynostosis surgery, rates of morbidity, mortality, and reoperation were low. These results support the merits of surgical delay, targeting an age of 6 months or older, and may serve as a more accurate metric of comparison to current minimally invasive techniques for craniosynostosis repair.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21311385     DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318213a178

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


  20 in total

1.  Unilateral and bilateral expression of a quantitative trait: asymmetry and symmetry in coronal craniosynostosis.

Authors:  Yann Heuzé; Neus Martínez-Abadías; Jennifer M Stella; Craig W Senders; Simeon A Boyadjiev; Lun-Jou Lo; Joan T Richtsmeier
Journal:  J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.656

2.  Intraoperative tissue expansion in the surgical correction of craniosynostosis.

Authors:  Laura J Doshier; Daniel Fowler; Thomas McEwan; C Lynette Baker; Arshad R Muzaffar
Journal:  Plast Surg (Oakv)       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 0.947

3.  Rapid re-synostosis following suturectomy in pediatric mice is age and location dependent.

Authors:  Christopher D Hermann; Kelsey Lawrence; Rene Olivares-Navarrete; Joseph K Williams; Robert E Guldberg; Barbara D Boyan; Zvi Schwartz
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2012-11-28       Impact factor: 4.398

4.  The shell technique: bilateral fronto-orbital reshaping in trigonocephaly.

Authors:  Concezio Di Rocco; Paolo Frassanito; Gianpiero Tamburrini
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2012-08-23       Impact factor: 1.475

5.  Microscopic versus open approach to craniosynostosis: a long-term outcomes comparison.

Authors:  John F Teichgraeber; James E Baumgartner; Stephen L Viviano; Jaime Gateno; James J Xia
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 1.046

6.  Nonsyndromic craniosynostosis.

Authors:  Rebecca M Garza; Rohit K Khosla
Journal:  Semin Plast Surg       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 2.314

7.  Use of tranexamic acid in craniosynostosis surgery.

Authors:  Justin P Martin; Jessica S Wang; Kasandra R Hanna; Madeline M Stovall; Kant Y Lin
Journal:  Plast Surg (Oakv)       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 0.947

8.  Indications for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing in Congenital Craniofacial Reconstruction.

Authors:  Mark Fisher; Miguel Medina; Branko Bojovic; Edward Ahn; Amir H Dorafshar
Journal:  Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr       Date:  2016-06-29

9.  Macropore design of tissue engineering scaffolds regulates mesenchymal stem cell differentiation fate.

Authors:  W Benton Swanson; Maiko Omi; Zhen Zhang; Hwa Kyung Nam; Younghun Jung; Gefei Wang; Peter X Ma; Nan E Hatch; Yuji Mishina
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  2021-03-24       Impact factor: 12.479

10.  Craniosynostosis: Esthetic protocol in open technique.

Authors:  Ghali E Ghali; George Zakhary
Journal:  Ann Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2013-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.