Internal Lefort III and monobloc distraction with biodegradable devices

被引:0
|
作者
Cohen, SR [1 ]
Holmes, RE [1 ]
机构
[1] Childrens Hosp & Hlth Care Ctr San Diego, Craniofacial Surg Serv, San Diego, CA USA
来源
3RD INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON CRANIAL AND FACIAL BONE DISTRACTION PROCESSES: 2001 DISTRACTION ODYSSEY | 2001年
关键词
midface hypoplasia; distraction osteogenesis; resorbable fixation; LeFort III advancement; monobloc advancement;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
In spite of the many advantages of internal metallic distraction devices, they can be more difficult to remove. By substituting the metallic fixation plates of the Stryker-Leibinger Modular Internal Distraction system, with resorbable MacroPore fixation mesh, only the distractor screw and cable drive need to be removed. Moreover, by utilizing a resorbable stabilizer, the screw and cable components are not needed for the consolidation phase, and can be removed at the completion of active distraction. Herein, 33 patients undergoing internal craniofacial distraction are presented. The MID system was utilized in 21, while a new Macropore, biodegradable distractor was employed in 12. The report documents our results and demonstrates early success with a new type of bioresorbable device. Our initial concept was to link plates and screws to a buried driving device. [1] This, in theory, would permit easy adaptation to almost all anatomic sites and variants. Toward this coal, we worked with Leibinger ultimately developing the Modular Internal Distraction (MID) system (Stryker-Leibinger, Inc., Kalamazoo, MI). [2] The MID system allowed the surgeon to fabricate custom internal distraction devices for virtually any region of the craniofacial skeleton. The first generation system contains expansion screws capable of 15 mm and 30 mm. of distraction. Depending on the distraction site and osteotomy, any configuration of titanium plates could be attached to the distraction screw to permit uniplanar internal distraction. A flexible activation cable is brought out through a distant, inconspicuous stab wound in the hair behind the ear. The MID system has been used extensively. It's primary disadvantage has been the difficulty of removal. We prefer to remove all hardware whenever feasible. Thus, a second operation, which required similar exposure to the first was required for device explantation. To eliminate the difficulty of device removal, we worked with the development team at MacroPore, Inc. (San Diego, CA) to come up with a resorbable design. On November 19, 1999, the first resorbable distractor was employed in a 13 year old boy with hemifacial microsomia to correct severe malar hypoplasia. [3] The device worked well and was easy to remove. Furthermore, because of the development of a new biodegradable stabilization plate, the metallic driving device could be explanted at the conclusion of the distraction period. This permitted rapid and early device removal without the need for complete re-exposure. The biodegradable stabilization plate provided rigid fixation of the advancement, while protecting the underlying, immature bony regenerate. Consolidation was therefore allowed to take place, while eliminating the external cable and the attached metallic distraction screw.
引用
收藏
页码:447 / 454
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [11] LeFort III advancement with and without osteogenesis distraction
    Iannetti, G
    Fadda, T
    Agrillo, A
    Poladas, G
    Iannetti, G
    Filiaci, F
    JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY, 2006, 17 (03) : 536 - 543
  • [12] Lefort II distraction with zygomatic repositioning versus Lefort III distraction: A comparison of surgical outcomes and complications
    Purnell, Chad A.
    Evans, Morgan
    Massenburg, Ben B.
    Kim, Susan
    Preston, Kathryn
    Kapadia, Hitesh
    Hopper, Richard A.
    JOURNAL OF CRANIO-MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2021, 49 (10) : 905 - 913
  • [13] Bone deposition/generation with LeFort III (midface) distraction
    Jensen, John N.
    McCarthy, Joseph G.
    Grayson, Barry H.
    Nusbaum, Annette O.
    Eski, Muhittin
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2007, 119 (01) : 298 - 307
  • [14] Quadruple internal distraction with monobloc advancement: Experience with 19 cases
    Arnaud, E
    Marchac, D
    Renier, D
    4TH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF MAXILLOFACIAL AND CRANIOFACIAL DISTRACTION, 2003, : 191 - 195
  • [15] Quadruple internal distraction with monobloc advancement: Experience with 20 cases
    Arnaud, E
    Marchac, D
    Renier, D
    CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY 10, 2003, : 77 - 79
  • [16] Internal craniofacial distraction with biodegradable devices: Early stabilization and protected bone regeneration
    Cohen, SR
    Holmes, RE
    Amis, P
    Fichtner, H
    JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY, 2000, 11 (04) : 354 - 366
  • [17] LeFort III Versus Monobloc Frontofacial Advancement: A Comparative Analysis of Soft Tissue Changes
    Wagner, Connor S.
    Cho, Daniel Y.
    Villavisanis, Dillan F.
    Kumar, Satvika
    Salinero, Lauren K.
    Barrero, Carlos E.
    Swanson, Jordan W.
    Bartlett, Scott P.
    Taylor, Jesse A.
    JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY, 2024, 35 (01) : 194 - 198
  • [18] Reduction of morbidity of the frontofacial monobloc advancement in children by the use of internal distraction
    Arnaud, Eric
    Marchac, Daniel
    Renier, Dominique
    PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2007, 120 (04) : 1009 - 1026
  • [19] Frontofacial Monobloc Advancement With Internal Distraction: Surgical Technique and Osteotomy Guide
    Ferreira Junior, Tancredo Alcantara
    Fontoura, Renato Rinco
    do Nascimento, Leyzeane Marques
    Alcantara, Mariana Torres
    Capuchinho-Junior, Geraldo Andrade
    Alonso, Nivaldo
    Matushita, Hamilton
    Costa, Bruno Silva
    de Lima, Franklin Bernardes Faraj
    OPERATIVE NEUROSURGERY, 2022, 23 (01) : E33 - E41
  • [20] Cephalometric analysis of LeFort III advancement using distraction techniques
    Cedars, M
    Linck, D
    Toth, B
    Chin, M
    CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY 7, 1997, : 299 - 301