Consolidation Time and Relapse: A Systematic Review of Outcomes in Internal versus External Midface Distraction for Syndromic Craniosynostosis

被引:15
作者
Bertrand, Anthony A.
Lipman, Kelsey J.
Bradley, James P.
Reidhead, Jacob
Lee, Justine C.
机构
[1] Univ Calif Los Angeles, David Geffen Sch Med, Div Plast & Reconstruct Surg, Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
[2] Stanford Univ, Dept Sociol, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
[3] Northwell Hlth, Div Plast & Reconstruct Surg, New York, NY USA
关键词
LE-FORT-III; FRONTOFACIAL MONOBLOC ADVANCEMENT; APERT SYNDROME; LEFORT-III; FOLLOW-UP; 3-DIMENSIONAL EVALUATION; ORBITAL ADVANCEMENT; INITIAL-EXPERIENCE; PEDIATRIC-PATIENTS; PFEIFFERS-SYNDROME;
D O I
10.1097/PRS.0000000000006164
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: The choice between internal and external distraction osteogenesis for midface advancement in patients with syndromic craniosynostosis is based primarily on surgeon preference and expertise. However, differences in outcomes between the two techniques have been sparingly compared. In this work, the authors performed a systematic review to compare outcomes between internal versus external midface distraction. Methods: A systematic review was performed of studies published between 1998 and 2018 (61 studies included; n = 689 patients). Operative characteristics, early reoperations, complications, and relapse rates were extracted. Bias evaluation was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa instrument. Statistical analyses were performed with independent samples t tests and linear regression analyses (p < 0.05 considered significant). Results: The authors found that external distraction was associated with more Le Fort III osteotomies and hardware adjustments (p = 0.023), whereas internal distraction was associated with more monobloc osteotomies and longer consolidation times (p = 0.008). No significant differences in the distance of midface advancement, reoperations, complications, or relapse rates were noted between internal versus external distraction, although external distraction trended toward a slightly higher relapse rate. Regardless of distraction protocol, consolidation time was found to be a strong negative predictor for relapse (beta = -0.792; p = 0.02). Conclusions: No significant differences were demonstrated in advancement distance, reoperative rates, complication rates, or relapse rates for internal versus external distraction for midface advancement. Regardless of distraction type, consolidation time was strongly inversely associated with relapse rates. The trend toward higher relapse in external distraction is potentially explained by the significantly lower consolidation times.
引用
收藏
页码:1125 / 1134
页数:10
相关论文
共 68 条
  • [1] Frontofacial advancement by internal distraction devices. A technical modification for the management of craniofacial dysostosis in early childhood
    Adolphs, N.
    Klein, M.
    Haberl, E. -J.
    Menneking, H.
    Hoffmeister, B.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2012, 41 (06) : 777 - 782
  • [2] Frontofacial Monobloc Distraction in the Very Young: A Review of 12 Consecutive Cases
    Ahmad, Fateh
    Cobb, Alistair R. M.
    Mills, Caroline
    Jones, Barry M.
    Hayward, Richard D.
    Dunaway, David J.
    [J]. PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2012, 129 (03) : 488E - 497E
  • [3] Akizuki T, 2000, NEUROSURG FOCUS, V9, P1
  • [4] Management of Exorbitism Using Midface Distraction Osteogenesis
    Ahmed Alyamani
    Peter Kessler
    Sondos Abuzinada
    [J]. Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, 2012, 11 (1) : 119 - 124
  • [5] Simultaneous multiple vector distraction for craniosynostosis syndromes
    Anderson, PJ
    Tan, E
    David, DJ
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF PLASTIC SURGERY, 2005, 58 (05): : 626 - 631
  • [6] Reduction of morbidity of the frontofacial monobloc advancement in children by the use of internal distraction
    Arnaud, Eric
    Marchac, Daniel
    Renier, Dominique
    [J]. PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2007, 120 (04) : 1009 - 1026
  • [7] Monobloc advancement by distraction osteogenesis decreases morbidity and relapse
    Bradley, James P.
    Gabbay, Joubin S.
    Taub, Peter J.
    Heller, Justin B.
    O'Hara, Catherine M.
    Benhaim, Prosper
    Kawamoto, Henry K., Jr.
    [J]. PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2006, 118 (07) : 1585 - 1597
  • [8] Le Fort III rigid external distraction complicated by intracranial movement of halo fixation pins
    Breugem, Corstiaan C.
    Bush, Kevin
    Fitzpatrick, Donald F.
    [J]. CLEFT PALATE-CRANIOFACIAL JOURNAL, 2008, 45 (03) : 332 - 336
  • [9] Maxillary distraction osteogenesis in Pfeiffer's syndrome: urgent ocular protection by gradual midfacial skeletal advancement
    Britto, JA
    Evans, RD
    Hayward, RD
    Jones, BM
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF PLASTIC SURGERY, 1998, 51 (05): : 343 - 349
  • [10] Initial Experience With a New Intraoral Midface Distraction Device
    Burstein, Fernando
    Soldanska, Magdalena
    Granger, Michael
    Berhane, ChiChi
    Schoemann, Mark
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY, 2015, 26 (04) : 1224 - 1228