Naikhoba C O Munabi1, Madeleine Williams2, Eric S Nagengast3, Artur Fahradyan3, Pedram Goel4, Daniel J Gould5, Jeffrey A Hammoudeh6, Mark M Urata7. 1. Resident, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. Electronic address: naikhoba.munabi@med.usc.edu. 2. Research Assistant, Division of Plastic and Maxillofacial Surgery, Children's Hospital of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. 3. Resident, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. 4. Medical Student, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. 5. Clinical Fellow, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. 6. Associate Professor of Clinical Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California; and Director of Jaw Deformities Care Program, Division of Plastic and Maxillofacial Surgery, Children's Hospital of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. 7. Chief, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; and Chief, Division of Plastic and Maxillofacial Surgery, Children's Hospital of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: An intracranial approach to the craniomaxillofacial skeleton can be effective for correcting complex craniofacial dystoses such as frontofacial hypoplasia, hypertelorism, and orbital dystopia. However, the significant morbidity resulting from the high complication rates has limited intracranial use. Given the need for intracranial approaches for certain clinical indications, the present study reevaluated intracranial frontofacial procedures to determine their safety and outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all frontofacial procedures completed between 2007 and 2017 at a single institution. Patients who had undergone monobloc distraction alone or with facial bipartition, facial bipartition alone, or box osteotomy were included in the intracranial cohort. Those who had undergone Le Fort III distraction, advancement, or a combination with Le Fort I were included in the subcranial cohort. The recorded data included demographics, previous craniofacial surgery, and operative events. The complications rates were compared between the 2 cohorts. RESULTS: The present study included 65 patients-35 subcranial and 30 intracranial. The rates of previous craniomaxillofacial (P = .193) and intracranial (P = .340) surgery were equivalent between the 2 cohorts. Of the 30 intracranial and 35 subcranial patients, 26.7% and 34.3% experienced complications (P = .218). The intracranial patients experienced more dural tears (53.3 vs 5.7%; P < .0001); however, no significant differences were observed in cerebrospinal fluid leakage. Reintubations (n = 3; 4.5%) occurred exclusively in the subcranial group. No significant differences in the major and minor complication rates were observed between the 2 cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Intracranial and subcranial frontofacial procedures are associated with an equal risk of major and minor complications. Given the lack of an increase in risk, intracranial frontofacial procedures should be considered for the management of complex craniofacial dystoses.
PURPOSE: An intracranial approach to the craniomaxillofacial skeleton can be effective for correcting complex craniofacial dystoses such as frontofacial hypoplasia, hypertelorism, and orbital dystopia. However, the significant morbidity resulting from the high complication rates has limited intracranial use. Given the need for intracranial approaches for certain clinical indications, the present study reevaluated intracranial frontofacial procedures to determine their safety and outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all frontofacial procedures completed between 2007 and 2017 at a single institution. Patients who had undergone monobloc distraction alone or with facial bipartition, facial bipartition alone, or box osteotomy were included in the intracranial cohort. Those who had undergone Le Fort III distraction, advancement, or a combination with Le Fort I were included in the subcranial cohort. The recorded data included demographics, previous craniofacial surgery, and operative events. The complications rates were compared between the 2 cohorts. RESULTS: The present study included 65 patients-35 subcranial and 30 intracranial. The rates of previous craniomaxillofacial (P = .193) and intracranial (P = .340) surgery were equivalent between the 2 cohorts. Of the 30 intracranial and 35 subcranial patients, 26.7% and 34.3% experienced complications (P = .218). The intracranial patients experienced more dural tears (53.3 vs 5.7%; P < .0001); however, no significant differences were observed in cerebrospinal fluid leakage. Reintubations (n = 3; 4.5%) occurred exclusively in the subcranial group. No significant differences in the major and minor complication rates were observed between the 2 cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Intracranial and subcranial frontofacial procedures are associated with an equal risk of major and minor complications. Given the lack of an increase in risk, intracranial frontofacial procedures should be considered for the management of complex craniofacial dystoses.