Rajiv R Iyer1, Adela Wu1, Alexandra Macmillan2, Leila Musavi2, Regina Cho2, Joseph Lopez2, George I Jallo1, Amir H Dorafshar2, Edward S Ahn3. 1. Division of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street, Phipps 560A, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. 2. Department of Plastic Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. Division of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street, Phipps 560A, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. eahn4@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cranial vault remodeling surgery for craniosynostosis carries the potential risk of dural venous sinus injury given the extensive bony exposure. Identification of the dural venous sinuses can be challenging in patients with craniosynostosis given the lack of accurate surface-localizing landmarks. Computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) has allowed surgeons to pre-operatively plan these complex procedures in an effort to increase reconstructive efficiency. An added benefit of this technology is the ability to intraoperatively map the dural venous sinuses based on pre-operative imaging. We utilized CAD/CAM technology to intraoperatively map the dural venous sinuses for patients undergoing reconstructive surgery for craniosynostosis in an effort to prevent sinus injury, increase operative efficiency, and enhance patient safety. Here, we describe our experience utilizing this intraoperative technology in pediatric patients with craniosynostosis. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of children undergoing reconstructive surgery for craniosynostosis using CAD/CAM surgical planning guides at our institution between 2012 and 2016. Data collected included the following: age, gender, type of craniosynostosis, estimated blood loss, sagittal sinus deviation from the sagittal suture, peri-operative outcomes, and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients underwent reconstructive cranial surgery for craniosynostosis, with a median age of 11 months (range, 7-160). Types of synostosis included metopic (6), unicoronal (6), sagittal (15), lambdoid (1), and multiple suture (4). Sagittal sinus deviation from the sagittal suture was maximal in unicoronal synostosis patients (10.2 ± 0.9 mm). All patients tolerated surgery well, and there were no occurrences of sagittal sinus, transverse sinus, or torcular injury. CONCLUSIONS: The use of CAD/CAM technology allows for accurate intraoperative dural venous sinus localization during reconstructive surgery for craniosynostosis and enhances operative efficiency and surgeon confidence while minimizing the risk of patient morbidity.
OBJECTIVE: Cranial vault remodeling surgery for craniosynostosis carries the potential risk of dural venous sinus injury given the extensive bony exposure. Identification of the dural venous sinuses can be challenging in patients with craniosynostosis given the lack of accurate surface-localizing landmarks. Computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) has allowed surgeons to pre-operatively plan these complex procedures in an effort to increase reconstructive efficiency. An added benefit of this technology is the ability to intraoperatively map the dural venous sinuses based on pre-operative imaging. We utilized CAD/CAM technology to intraoperatively map the dural venous sinuses for patients undergoing reconstructive surgery for craniosynostosis in an effort to prevent sinus injury, increase operative efficiency, and enhance patient safety. Here, we describe our experience utilizing this intraoperative technology in pediatric patients with craniosynostosis. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of children undergoing reconstructive surgery for craniosynostosis using CAD/CAM surgical planning guides at our institution between 2012 and 2016. Data collected included the following: age, gender, type of craniosynostosis, estimated blood loss, sagittal sinus deviation from the sagittal suture, peri-operative outcomes, and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients underwent reconstructive cranial surgery for craniosynostosis, with a median age of 11 months (range, 7-160). Types of synostosis included metopic (6), unicoronal (6), sagittal (15), lambdoid (1), and multiple suture (4). Sagittal sinus deviation from the sagittal suture was maximal in unicoronal synostosispatients (10.2 ± 0.9 mm). All patients tolerated surgery well, and there were no occurrences of sagittal sinus, transverse sinus, or torcular injury. CONCLUSIONS: The use of CAD/CAM technology allows for accurate intraoperative dural venous sinus localization during reconstructive surgery for craniosynostosis and enhances operative efficiency and surgeon confidence while minimizing the risk of patient morbidity.
Authors: Jonathan Burge; Nikoo R Saber; Thomas Looi; Brooke French; Zoha Usmani; Niloofar Anooshiravani; Peter Kim; Christopher Forrest; John Phillips Journal: J Craniofac Surg Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 1.046
Authors: Paul A Stricker; Susan M Goobie; Franklyn P Cladis; Charles M Haberkern; Petra M Meier; Srijaya K Reddy; Thanh T Nguyen; Lingyu Cai; Marcia Polansky; Peter Szmuk; John Fiadjoe; Codruta Soneru; Ricardo Falcon; Timothy Petersen; Courtney Kowalczyk-Derderian; Nicholas Dalesio; Stefan Budac; Neels Groenewald; Daniel Rubens; Douglas Thompson; Rheana Watts; Katherine Gentry; Iskra Ivanova; Mali Hetmaniuk; Vincent Hsieh; Michael Collins; Karen Wong; Wendy Binstock; Russell Reid; Kim Poteet-Schwartz; Heike Gries; Rebecca Hall; Jeffrey Koh; Carolyn Bannister; Wai Sung; Ranu Jain; Allison Fernandez; Gerald F Tuite; Ernesto Ruas; Oleg Drozhinin; Lisa Tetreault; Bridget Muldowney; Karene Ricketts; Patrick Fernandez; Lisa Sohn; John Hajduk; Brad Taicher; Jessica Burkhart; Allison Wright; Jane Kugler; Lea Barajas-DeLoa; Meera Gangadharan; Veronica Busso; Kayla Stallworth; Susan Staudt; Kristen L Labovsky; Chris D Glover; Henry Huang; Helena Karlberg-Hippard; Samantha Capehart; Cynthia Streckfus; Kim-Phuong T Nguyen; Peter Manyang; Jose Luis Martinez; Jennifer K Hansen; Heather Mitzel Levy; Alyssa Brzenski; Franklin Chiao; Pablo Ingelmo; Razaz Mujallid; Olutoyin A Olutoye; Tariq Syed; Hubert Benzon; Adrian Bosenberg Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Jesse A Taylor; Christopher A Derderian; Scott P Bartlett; John E Fiadjoe; Emily M Sussman; Paul A Stricker Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Mitchel Seruya; Daniel E Borsuk; Saami Khalifian; Benjamin S Carson; Nicholas M Dalesio; Amir H Dorafshar Journal: J Craniofac Surg Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 1.046
Authors: Matthew R Greives; Benjamin W Ware; Ashley G Tian; Jesse A Taylor; Ian F Pollack; Joseph E Losee Journal: Ann Plast Surg Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 1.539
Authors: Cassius Vinicius C Reis; Sebastião N S Gusmão; Ali M Elhadi; Alexander Dru; Uédson Tazinaffo; Joseph M Zabramski; Robert F Spetzler; Mark C Preul Journal: Surg Neurol Int Date: 2015-07-21
Authors: Markus Lehner; D Wendling-Keim; M Kunz; S Deininger; S Zundel; A Peraud; G Mast Journal: Childs Nerv Syst Date: 2020-01-03 Impact factor: 1.475