Consolidation Time and Relapse: A Systematic Review of Outcomes in Internal versus External Midface Distraction for Syndromic Craniosynostosis
- 1 November 2019
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
- Vol. 144 (5), 1125-1134
- https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000006164
Abstract
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.This publication has 68 references indexed in Scilit:
- Internal Distraction Resulted in Improved Patient-Reported Outcomes for Midface HypoplasiaThe Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, 2018
- Complications in 54 Frontofacial Distraction Procedures in Patients With Syndromic CraniosynostosisThe Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, 2015
- Midface distraction osteogenesis: Internal vs. external devicesInternational Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, 2011
- Advancement of the midface, from conventional Le Fort III osteotomy to Le Fort III distraction: review of the literatureInternational Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, 2008
- Distraction osteogenesis in the surgical treatment of craniostenosis: a comparison of internal and external craniofacial distractor devicesChild's Nervous System, 2007
- Reduction of Morbidity of the Frontofacial Monobloc Advancement in Children by the Use of Internal DistractionPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2007
- Monobloc Advancement by Distraction Osteogenesis Decreases Morbidity and RelapsePlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2006
- Halo Distraction of the Le Fort III in Syndromic Craniosynostosis: A Long-Term AssessmentPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2005
- Craniofacial Distraction Osteogenesis: A Review of 3278 CasesPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2001
- Distraction Osteogenesis of the Human Craniofacial SkeletonThe Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, 1995