Orbital Volumetric Analysis in Patients With Unicoronal Craniosynostosis: A Comparison Between Distraction Osteogenesis and Fronto-Orbital Advancement.
Journal
Annals of plastic surgery
ISSN: 1536-3708
Titre abrégé: Ann Plast Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7805336
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 05 2021
01 05 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
10
4
2021
medline:
18
5
2021
entrez:
9
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Unicoronal craniosynostosis is associated with orbital restriction and asymmetry. Surgical treatment aims to both correct the aesthetic deformity and prevent the development of ocular dysfunction. We used orbital quadrant and hemispheric volumetric analysis to assess orbital restriction and compare the effectiveness of distraction osteogenesis with anterior rotational cranial flap (DO) and bilateral fronto-orbital advancement and cranial vault remodeling (FOAR) with respect to the correction of orbital restriction in patients with unicoronal craniosynostosis. A retrospective review of all patients with a diagnosis of unicoronal craniosynostosis and treated with either DO or FOAR from 2000 to 2019 was performed. Preoperative and postoperative total orbital volumes, as well as quadrant and hemispheric volume ratios, were calculated from 3-dimensional head computed tomography scans. Selected preoperative and postoperative orbital measurements, including the maxillary length of the orbit (MLO; zygomaticofrontal suture to the top of zygomatic arch) and the sphenoid length of the orbit (SLO; the top of sphenoid suture to the top of zygomatic arch), were also obtained. Data were available for 28 patients with unicoronal craniosynostosis. Mean preoperative total orbital volume was significantly smaller on the synostotic side compared with the nonsynostotic side (10.94 vs 12.20 cm3, P = 0.04). Preoperative MLO and SLO were significantly longer on the synostotic side compared with the nonsynostotic side (MLO: 20.26 vs 17.75 mm, P < 0.001; SLO: 26.91 vs 24.93 mm, P = 0.01). Distraction osteogenesis and FOAR produced significantly different changes in orbital quadrant and/or hemispheric volume ratios on the nonsynostotic side but not on the synostotic side. Before correction, patients with unicoronal craniosynostosis have significantly smaller total orbital volumes on the synostotic side compared with the nonsynostotic side and significantly greater MLO and SLO on the synostotic side compared with the nonsynostotic side. There is no significant difference between DO and FOAR with regard to correcting the observed orbital restriction in these patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Unicoronal craniosynostosis is associated with orbital restriction and asymmetry. Surgical treatment aims to both correct the aesthetic deformity and prevent the development of ocular dysfunction. We used orbital quadrant and hemispheric volumetric analysis to assess orbital restriction and compare the effectiveness of distraction osteogenesis with anterior rotational cranial flap (DO) and bilateral fronto-orbital advancement and cranial vault remodeling (FOAR) with respect to the correction of orbital restriction in patients with unicoronal craniosynostosis.
METHODS
A retrospective review of all patients with a diagnosis of unicoronal craniosynostosis and treated with either DO or FOAR from 2000 to 2019 was performed. Preoperative and postoperative total orbital volumes, as well as quadrant and hemispheric volume ratios, were calculated from 3-dimensional head computed tomography scans. Selected preoperative and postoperative orbital measurements, including the maxillary length of the orbit (MLO; zygomaticofrontal suture to the top of zygomatic arch) and the sphenoid length of the orbit (SLO; the top of sphenoid suture to the top of zygomatic arch), were also obtained.
RESULTS
Data were available for 28 patients with unicoronal craniosynostosis. Mean preoperative total orbital volume was significantly smaller on the synostotic side compared with the nonsynostotic side (10.94 vs 12.20 cm3, P = 0.04). Preoperative MLO and SLO were significantly longer on the synostotic side compared with the nonsynostotic side (MLO: 20.26 vs 17.75 mm, P < 0.001; SLO: 26.91 vs 24.93 mm, P = 0.01). Distraction osteogenesis and FOAR produced significantly different changes in orbital quadrant and/or hemispheric volume ratios on the nonsynostotic side but not on the synostotic side.
CONCLUSIONS
Before correction, patients with unicoronal craniosynostosis have significantly smaller total orbital volumes on the synostotic side compared with the nonsynostotic side and significantly greater MLO and SLO on the synostotic side compared with the nonsynostotic side. There is no significant difference between DO and FOAR with regard to correcting the observed orbital restriction in these patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33833173
doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000002816
pii: 00000637-202105003-00004
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
S367-S373Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: none declared.
Références
Pensler JM, Balich SM, Greenwald MJ. Ocular abnormalities associated with unilateral coronal synostosis. Ann Plast Surg . 1994;33:162–165.
Beckett JS, Persing JA, Steinbacher DM. Bilateral orbital dysmorphology in unicoronal synostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg . 2013;131:125–130.
Tan SP, Proctor MR, Mulliken JB, et al. Early frontofacial symmetry after correction of unilateral coronal synostosis: frontoorbital advancement vs endoscopic strip craniectomy and helmet therapy. J Craniofac Surg . 2013;24:1190–1194.
MacKinnon S, Rogers GF, Gregas M, et al. Treatment of unilateral coronal synostosis by endoscopic strip craniectomy or fronto-orbital advancement: ophthalmologic findings. J AAPOS . 2009;13:155–160.
Gencarelli JR, Murphy A, Samargandi OA, et al. Ophthalmologic outcomes following fronto-orbital advancement for unicoronal craniosynostosis. J Craniofac Surg . 2016;27:1629–1635.
Yu JW, Xu W, Wink JD, et al. Strabismus in unicoronal craniosynostosis: effect of orbital dysmorphology and fronto-orbital advancement and remodeling. Plast Reconstr Surg . 2020;145:382e–390e.
Levy RL, Rogers GF, Mulliken JB, et al. Astigmatism in unilateral coronal synostosis: incidence and laterality. J AAPOS . 2007;11:367–372.
Tarczy-Hornoch K, Smith B, Urata M. Amblyogenic anisometropia in the contralateral eye in unicoronal craniosynostosis. J AAPOS . 2008;12:471–476.
Selber JC, Brooks C, Kurichi JE, et al. Long-term results following fronto-orbital reconstruction in nonsyndromic unicoronal synostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg . 2008;121:251e–260e.
MacKinnon S, Proctor MR, Rogers GF, et al. Improving ophthalmic outcomes in children with unilateral coronal synostosis by treatment with endoscopic strip craniectomy and helmet therapy rather than fronto-orbital advancement. J AAPOS . 2013;17:259–265.
Alford J, Derderian CA, Smartt JM Jr. Surgical treatment of nonsyndromic unicoronal craniosynostosis. J Craniofac Surg . 2018;29:1199–1207.
Tahiri Y, Swanson JW, Taylor JA. Distraction osteogenesis versus conventional fronto-orbital advancement for the treatment of unilateral coronal synostosis: a comparison of perioperative morbidity and short-term outcomes. J Craniofac Surg . 2015;26:1904–1908.
Brandel MG, Dalle Ore CL, Reid CM, et al. Distraction osteogenesis for unicoronal craniosynostosis: rotational flap technique and case series. Plast Reconstr Surg . 2018;142:904e–908e.
Domeshek LF, Woo A, Skolnick GB, et al. Postoperative changes in orbital dysmorphology in patients with unicoronal synostosis. J Craniofac Surg . 2019;30:483–488.
Bentley RP, Sgouros S, Natarajan K, et al. Changes in orbital volume during childhood in cases of craniosynostosis. J Neurosurg . 2002;96:747–754.
Lo LJ, Marsh JL, Kane AA, et al. Orbital dysmorphology in unilateral coronal synostosis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J . 1996;33:190–197.