A Single-Center Retrospective Review of Perioperative Complications and Reoperation Rates Between Open Cranial Vault Remodeling and Distraction Osteogenesis for Unilateral Coronal Craniosynostosis. Issue 7 (October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kamel, George N.; Wong, Alvin; Segal, Rachel M.; Carbulido, Mary Kristine; Hornacek, Michael; Ewing, Emily; Lance, Samuel H.; Gosman, Amanda A.
• Is Part Of: Journal of craniofacial surgery. Volume 32:Issue 7(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-10
• Subjects: Craniosynostosis -- distraction osteogenesis -- open -- reoperation -- unicoronal; Facial bones -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Skull -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Face -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; 617.52
• DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000007831
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1049-2275

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Unilateral coronal craniosynostosis (UCS) is the third most prevalent form of craniosynostosis. Traditional treatment of UCS has been achieved with fronto-orbital advancement and cranial vault remodeling (FOAR), but utilization of cranial distraction osteogenesis (DO) techniques has increased. This study aims to compare perioperative complications and reoperation trends in FOAR versus DO techniques at a single institution. Methods: An Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective review was performed from January 1999 to November 2018 at a single institution. Patients were those that have undergone FOAR or DO with an anterior rotational flap technique as previously described. Indications for secondary procedures included: contour deformities, relapse, surgical site infection, and persistent cranial defects. Results: Eighty-one patients with UCS were identified, 64 patients underwent FOAR and 17 patients underwent DO. When perioperative characteristics were compared, patients who underwent DO were younger in age, however, there was no significant difference in transfusion requirement or length of stay between patient cohorts. Surgery time was increased in DO patients. When perioperative complications were compared, more intraoperative dural tears were observed in the FOAR cohort. When unplanned reoperation rates were compared, patients who had undergone FOAR had a statistically significant higher reoperation rates at 5 years of follow up. When including routine distractor removal as a reoperation, reoperative rate was increased in the DO cohort. No difference in reoperation rates was noted at 5 years following index operation. Conclusions: The safety profile of DO is similar to that of traditional FOAR techniques for treatment of UCS. Longer-term follow-up studies are needed to elucidate whether outcomes are durable, but the unplanned reoperation rate in DO is less than that of FOAR at 5 years and presents several advantages that warrants its use in patients with UCS. Abstract : Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text