Internal Lefort III and monobloc distraction with biodegradable devices

被引:0
|
作者
Cohen, SR [1 ]
Holmes, RE [1 ]
机构
[1] Childrens Hosp & Hlth Care Ctr San Diego, Craniofacial Surg Serv, San Diego, CA USA
来源
3RD INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON CRANIAL AND FACIAL BONE DISTRACTION PROCESSES: 2001 DISTRACTION ODYSSEY | 2001年
关键词
midface hypoplasia; distraction osteogenesis; resorbable fixation; LeFort III advancement; monobloc advancement;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
In spite of the many advantages of internal metallic distraction devices, they can be more difficult to remove. By substituting the metallic fixation plates of the Stryker-Leibinger Modular Internal Distraction system, with resorbable MacroPore fixation mesh, only the distractor screw and cable drive need to be removed. Moreover, by utilizing a resorbable stabilizer, the screw and cable components are not needed for the consolidation phase, and can be removed at the completion of active distraction. Herein, 33 patients undergoing internal craniofacial distraction are presented. The MID system was utilized in 21, while a new Macropore, biodegradable distractor was employed in 12. The report documents our results and demonstrates early success with a new type of bioresorbable device. Our initial concept was to link plates and screws to a buried driving device. [1] This, in theory, would permit easy adaptation to almost all anatomic sites and variants. Toward this coal, we worked with Leibinger ultimately developing the Modular Internal Distraction (MID) system (Stryker-Leibinger, Inc., Kalamazoo, MI). [2] The MID system allowed the surgeon to fabricate custom internal distraction devices for virtually any region of the craniofacial skeleton. The first generation system contains expansion screws capable of 15 mm and 30 mm. of distraction. Depending on the distraction site and osteotomy, any configuration of titanium plates could be attached to the distraction screw to permit uniplanar internal distraction. A flexible activation cable is brought out through a distant, inconspicuous stab wound in the hair behind the ear. The MID system has been used extensively. It's primary disadvantage has been the difficulty of removal. We prefer to remove all hardware whenever feasible. Thus, a second operation, which required similar exposure to the first was required for device explantation. To eliminate the difficulty of device removal, we worked with the development team at MacroPore, Inc. (San Diego, CA) to come up with a resorbable design. On November 19, 1999, the first resorbable distractor was employed in a 13 year old boy with hemifacial microsomia to correct severe malar hypoplasia. [3] The device worked well and was easy to remove. Furthermore, because of the development of a new biodegradable stabilization plate, the metallic driving device could be explanted at the conclusion of the distraction period. This permitted rapid and early device removal without the need for complete re-exposure. The biodegradable stabilization plate provided rigid fixation of the advancement, while protecting the underlying, immature bony regenerate. Consolidation was therefore allowed to take place, while eliminating the external cable and the attached metallic distraction screw.
引用
收藏
页码:447 / 454
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Le Fort III Distraction With Internal vs External Distractors: A Cephalometric Analysis
    Robertson, Kevin J.
    Mendez, Bernardino M.
    Bruce, William J.
    McDonnell, Brendan D.
    Chiodo, Michael V.
    Patel, Parit A.
    CLEFT PALATE-CRANIOFACIAL JOURNAL, 2018, 55 (05) : 721 - 727
  • [32] Distraction osteogenesis for the cranio-maxillofacial region (III): A compendium of devices for the dentoalveolus
    Hariri, Firdaus
    Chua, Hannah Daile P.
    Cheung, Lim Kwong
    JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY MEDICINE AND PATHOLOGY, 2013, 25 (02) : 101 - 114
  • [33] Tension forces in relation to LeFort III osteotomies
    Herford, AS
    Finn, R
    Tharanon, W
    Sinn, DP
    JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY, 2000, 11 (02) : 197 - 202
  • [34] Distraction osteogenesis in the surgical treatment of craniostenosis: A comparison of internal and external craniofacial distractor devices
    Pelo, S.
    Gasparini, G.
    Di Petrillo, A.
    Tamburrini, G.
    Di Rocco, C.
    CHILDS NERVOUS SYSTEM, 2007, 23 (12) : 1447 - 1453
  • [35] Distraction osteogenesis in the surgical treatment of craniostenosis: a comparison of internal and external craniofacial distractor devices
    S. Pelo
    G. Gasparini
    A. Di Petrillo
    G. Tamburrini
    C. Di Rocco
    Child's Nervous System, 2007, 23 : 1447 - 1453
  • [36] Distractor position and distraction amplitude in fronto-facial monobloc advancement : A case series
    Guerin, Jade
    Hennocq, Quentin
    Paternoster, Giovanna
    Arnaud, Eric
    Khonsari, Roman Hossein
    JOURNAL OF STOMATOLOGY ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2024, 125 (05)
  • [37] MONOBLOC CRANIOMAXILLOFACIAL DISTRACTION OSTEOGENESIS IN A NEWBORN WITH SEVERE CRANIOFACIAL SYNOSTOSIS - A PRELIMINARY-REPORT
    POLLEY, JW
    FIGUEROA, AA
    CHARBEL, FT
    BERKOWITZ, R
    REISBERG, D
    COHEN, M
    JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY, 1995, 6 (05) : 421 - 423
  • [38] An internal distraction device for midface distraction osteogenesis: The NAVID system type Z'gok
    Sakamoto, Yoshiaki
    Sakamoto, Teruo
    Ishii, Takenobu
    Kishi, Kazuo
    JOURNAL OF PLASTIC RECONSTRUCTIVE AND AESTHETIC SURGERY, 2020, 73 (02) : 351 - 356
  • [39] Combined Internal and External Le Fort III Distraction Osteogenesis-the "Elusive Vector"
    Wall, Steven Arthur
    Butler, Lucy
    Byren, Jo
    Carls, Peter Frederick
    Greenwood, Sue
    McKnight, Mary
    Middleton, Judith
    Saeed, Nadeem
    JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY, 2009, 20 : 1806 - 1808
  • [40] Le Fort III Distraction Osteogenesis: Modification of the Intraoral Splint in the Rigid External Distraction
    Lim, Hyoseob
    Ko, Ellen Wen-Ching
    Lo, Lun-Jou
    JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY, 2012, 23 (03) : 856 - 858