2006
DOI: 10.1097/01.scs.0000235110.92988.fb
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Le Fort III Midfacial Distraction Using an Internal Distraction Device for Syndromic Craniosynostosis

Abstract: Le Fort III midfacial distraction using internal and external devices is a well-accepted procedure for the midfacial retrusion of craniosynostosis syndrome patients. The authors described 20 consecutive series of Le Fort III midfacial distraction using internal distraction devices. Two types of devices were utilized. One type was a zygoma-skull device (the anterior part of the device is attached to the zygoma, and the posterior part is attached to the skull), which was used in six cases. The other was a zygoma… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is not easy to summarize the results of the distractions with internal distractors. Individual publications report reasonable results, but at the same time in Satoh, 174 the internal distractors are eventually replaced with an external frame in 3/20 patients, whereas in Meling, 175 problems are reported in 2/7 patients. In Holmes, 176 we find a policy change on account of poor results with internal distractors in 7 patients in favor of the push–pull technique, in Cedars 178 the internal distractors were removed prematurely in 2/14 patients, and lastly in Gosain 177 the internal distractors were replaced with an external frame in 2/7 patients.…”
Section: Surgical Treatment Of Syndromic Craniosynostosis—the Facementioning
confidence: 96%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It is not easy to summarize the results of the distractions with internal distractors. Individual publications report reasonable results, but at the same time in Satoh, 174 the internal distractors are eventually replaced with an external frame in 3/20 patients, whereas in Meling, 175 problems are reported in 2/7 patients. In Holmes, 176 we find a policy change on account of poor results with internal distractors in 7 patients in favor of the push–pull technique, in Cedars 178 the internal distractors were removed prematurely in 2/14 patients, and lastly in Gosain 177 the internal distractors were replaced with an external frame in 2/7 patients.…”
Section: Surgical Treatment Of Syndromic Craniosynostosis—the Facementioning
confidence: 96%
“…The mean midface advancement reached was 20 mm. Satoh et al 174 described 20 syndromic craniosynostosis patients with mean age at surgery 9.6 years. A 14 to 20 mm distraction length was obtained.…”
Section: Surgical Treatment Of Syndromic Craniosynostosis—the Facementioning
confidence: 99%
“…7 Midfacial advancement should be achieved by gradual distraction using internal distraction devices. 13,14 For that purpose one pair of KLS-Martin temporal distraction devices for adults according to Marchac (Art. 51-620-35, maximum feed of 35 mm, Gebrüder Martin GmbH, 78532 Tuttlingen, Germany) with Molina pivots (Art.…”
Section: Case Reportmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…6 Internal distraction can be accomplished with skull-zygoma or zygoma-zygoma devices. 9 One complication that can arise from internal distraction of the midface is fracture of the zygomatic-maxillary junction, which bears the load of the distracting forces in skullzygoma devices 6 (Figure 1). The zygomatic-maxillary suture is frequently a weak point in the facial structure and may not be fully mature until patients are older than 15 years old.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[10][11][12] In the case of convex temporal bones, as seen in Pfeiffer and Apert syndromes, the force on the zygomatic-maxillary junction is further increased. 9,13 Fractures of the zygomatic-maxillary junction occur most commonly intraoperatively, while fractures during the distraction process are relatively less common. 14,15 A number of salvage options have been described in the case of intraoperative fracture, including rigid fixation across the midface, pinning, or switching to an external distraction system.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%