Perioperative Comparison Between Open Cranial Vault Remodeling and Distraction Osteogenesis for Unilateral Lambdoid Craniosynostosis.
Journal
The Journal of craniofacial surgery
ISSN: 1536-3732
Titre abrégé: J Craniofac Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9010410
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jun 2023
01 Jun 2023
Historique:
received:
15
07
2022
accepted:
23
10
2022
medline:
5
6
2023
pubmed:
14
3
2023
entrez:
13
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There are multiple treatment options for unilateral lambdoid craniosynostosis (ULS) including open posterior cranial vault remodeling (OCVR) and distraction osteogenesis (DO). There is a paucity of data comparing these techniques in the treatment of ULS. This study compared the perioperative characteristics of these interventions for patients with ULS. An IRB-approved chart review was performed from January 1999 to November 2018 at a single institution. Inclusion criteria included the diagnosis of ULS, treatment with either OCVR or DO using a posterior rotational flap technique, and a minimum 1-year follow-up. Seventeen patients met the inclusion criteria (12 OCVR and 5 DO). Patients in each cohort were found to have a similar distribution in sex, age at the time of surgery, synostosis laterality, weight, and length of follow-up. There was no significant difference in mean estimated blood loss/kg, surgical time, or transfusion requirements between cohorts. Distraction osteogenesis patients had a longer mean hospital length of stay (3.4 +/- 0.6 d versus 2.0 +/- 0.6 d, P = 0.0004). All patients were admitted to the surgical ward postoperatively. In the OCVR cohort, complications included 1 dural tear, 1 surgical site infection, and 2 reoperations. In the DO cohort, 1 patient had a distraction site infection, treated with antibiotics. There was no significant difference in estimated blood loss, volume of blood transfusion, or surgical time between OCVR and DO. Patients who underwent OCVR had a higher incidence of postoperative complications and the need for reoperation. This data provides insight into the perioperative differences between OCVR and DO in patients with ULS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36913558
doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000009227
pii: 00001665-202306000-00016
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1222-1225Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 by Mutaz B. Habal, MD.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
Rattani A, Riordan CP, Meara JG, et al. Comparative analysis of cranial vault remodeling versus endoscopic suturectomy in the treatment of unilateral lambdoid craniosynostosis. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2020;26:105–112
Rhodes JL, Tye GW, Fearon JA, et al. Craniosynostosis of the lambdoid suture. Semin Plast Surg 2014;28:138–143
Borad V, Cordes EJ, Liljeberg KM, et al. Isolated lambdoid craniosynostosis. J Craniofac Surg 2019;30:2390–2392
Komuro Y, Yanai A, Hayashi A, et al. Treatment of unilateral lambdoid synostosis with cranial distraction. J Craniofac Surg 2004;15:609–613
Smartt JM, Reid RR, Singh DJ, et al. True lambdoid craniosynostosis: long-term results of surgical and conservative therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007;120:993–1003
Kamel GN, McKee RM, Carbulido K, et al. A posterior rotational flap technique using distraction osteogenesis for unilateral lambdoid craniosynostosis. J Craniofac Surg 2021;32:1365–1369.
Wilbrand JF, Howaldt HP, Reinges M, et al. Surgical correction of lambdoid synostosis—new technique and first results. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2016;44:1531–1535
Rodriguez-Feo C, Winocour J, Ramirez R, et al. Twenty-year review of a single surgeon’s experience using a unique surgical technique to correct lambdoidal synostosis. J Craniofac Surg 2017;28:1761–1765
Barone CM, Jimenez DF. Endoscopic craniectomy for early correction of craniosynostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999;104:1965–1975
Satoh K, Mitsukawa N. Suitable indication for the application of distraction osteogenesis: Occipital enlargement for lambdoid synostosis. J Craniofac Surg 2013;24:1530–1534
Weimin S, Cui J, Chen J, et al. Treatment of unilateral lambdoid synostosis using cranium distraction osteogenesis with Z-shaped osteotomy. Ann Plast Surg 2017;78:294–298
Zöller JE, Mischkowski RA, Speder B. Preliminary results of standardized occipital advancement in the treatment of lambdoid synostosis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2002;30:343–348
Corkum JP, Burke E, Samargandi O, et al. Comparison of distraction osteogenesis and single-stage remodeling for correction of unilateral coronal craniosynostosis. J Craniofac Surg 2019;30:370–376
IBM Corp. Released 2017 IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
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
White N, Evans M, Dover MS, et al. Posterior calvarial vault expansion using distraction osteogenesis. Childs Nerv Syst 2009;25:231–236
Lao WW, Denny AD. Internal distraction osteogenesis to correct symptomatic cephalocranial disproportion. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010;126:1677–1688
Hobar PC, Masson JA, Wilson R, et al. The importance of the dura in craniofacial surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 1996;98:217–225
Thatikunta M, Pearson L, Nguyen C, et al. Three-dimensional volumetric changes in posterior vault distraction with distraction osteogenesis. J Craniofac Surg 2020;31:1301–1306
Martin JP, Wang JS, Hanna KR, et al. Use of tranexamic acid in craniosynostosis surgery. Plast Surg (Oakv) 2015;23:247–251