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.
Subject(s)
Craniosynostoses , Osteogenesis, Distraction , Craniosynostoses/surgery , Humans , Infant , Reoperation , Retrospective Studies , Skull/surgery , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The primary outcome metric in patients with craniosynostosis are changes in intracranial volumes (ICVs). In patients who undergo distraction osteogenesis (DO) to treat craniosynostosis, changes are also dependent on the length of distraction. Virtual surgical planning (VSP) has been used to predict anticipated changes in ICV during cranial vault reconstruction. The purpose of this study is to analyze the actual versus predicted ICV changes using VSP in patients who undergo DO for craniosynostosis management. METHODS: All patients with craniosynostosis treated with DO at a single institution, Rady Children's Hospital, between December 2013 and May 2019 were identified. Inclusion criteria are as follows: VSP planning with predicted postoperative ICV values and preoperative and postdistraction CT scans to quantify ICV. Postoperative ICV and VSP-estimated ICV were adjusted for age-related ICV growth. The primary outcome measure calculated was age-adjusted percent volume change per millimeter distraction (PVCPD), and results were analyzed using paired Wilcoxon signed rank tests. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients underwent DO for cranial vault remodeling. Nineteen patients were nonsyndromic, and 8 patients were syndromic. The median postoperative PVCPD was 0.30%/mm, and the median VSP-estimated PVCPD was 0.36% per millimeter (P < 0.001). A subanalysis of nonsyndromic patients showed a median postoperative PVCPD of 0.29%/mm in nonsyndromic patients that differed significantly from the VSP estimate of 0.34%/mm (P = 0.003). There was also a significant difference in syndromic patients' observed PVCPD of 0.41%/mm versus VSP estimate of 0.79%/mm (P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: Virtual surgical planning overestimates the change in ICV attributable to DO in both syndromic and nonsyndromic patients.
