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
  • [11] Intracranial Fixation Pin Migration: A Complication of External Le Fort III Distraction Osteogenesis in Apert Syndrome
    Cai, Ming
    Shen, Guofang
    Wang, Xudong
    Fang, Bing
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY, 2010, 21 (05) : 1557 - 1559
  • [12] Soft-Tissue Volumetric Changes Following Monobloc Distraction Procedure: Analysis Using Digital Three-Dimensional Photogrammetry System (3dMD)
    Chan, Fuan Chiang
    Kawamoto, Henry K.
    Federico, Christina
    Bradley, James P.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY, 2013, 24 (02) : 416 - 420
  • [13] DISTRACTION OSTEOGENESIS OF THE HUMAN CRANIOFACIAL SKELETON - INITIAL EXPERIENCE WITH A NEW DISTRACTION SYSTEM
    COHEN, SR
    RUTRICK, RE
    BURSTEIN, FD
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY, 1995, 6 (05) : 368 - 374
  • [14] Halo distraction of the Le Fort III in syndromic craniosynostosis: A long-term assessment
    Fearon, JA
    [J]. PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2005, 115 (06) : 1524 - 1536
  • [15] Airway Changes following Le Fort III Distraction Osteogenesis for Syndromic Craniosynostosis: A Clinical and Cephalometric Study
    Flores, Roberto L.
    Shetye, Pradip R.
    Zeitler, Daniel
    Bernstein, Joseph
    Wang, Edwin
    Grayson, Barry H.
    McCarthy, Joseph G.
    [J]. PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2009, 124 (02) : 590 - 601
  • [16] Gandedkar NH, 2017, J ORAL MAX SURG MED, V29, P527, DOI 10.1016/j.ajoms.2017.06.003
  • [17] Complications in 54 Frontofacial Distraction Procedures in Patients With Syndromic Craniosynostosis
    Goldstein, Jesse A.
    Paliga, James Thomas
    Taylor, Jesse A.
    Bartlett, Scott P.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY, 2015, 26 (01) : 128 - 132
  • [18] Midface distraction following Le Fort III and monobloc osteotomies: Problems and solutions
    Gosain, AK
    Santoro, TD
    Havlik, RJ
    Cohen, SR
    Holmes, RE
    [J]. PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2002, 109 (06) : 1797 - 1808
  • [19] Correcting the Typical Apert Face: Combining Bipartition with Monobloc Distraction
    Greig, Aina V. H.
    Britto, Jonathan A.
    Abela, Christopher
    Witherow, Helen
    Richards, Robin
    Evans, Robert D.
    Jeelani, N. U. Owase
    Hayward, Richard D.
    Dunaway, David J.
    [J]. PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2013, 131 (02) : 219E - 230E
  • [20] Frontofacial Advancement by Distraction Osteogenesis: A Long-Term Review
    Gwanmesia, Ivo
    Jeelani, Owase
    Hayward, Richard
    Dunaway, David
    [J]. PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2015, 135 (02) : 553 - 560