Close
New

Medscape is available in 5 Language Editions – Choose your Edition here.

 

Craniofacial Distraction Osteogenesis Treatment & Management

  • Author: Mario J Imola, MD, DDS, FRCS, FACS, FRCSC; Chief Editor: Arlen D Meyers, MD, MBA  more...
 
Updated: Nov 17, 2015
 

Preoperative Details

Although opinion differs regarding the timing of intervention and the type of device to use in distraction osteogenesis (DO), careful preoperative planning and proper case selection are critical to a successful outcome. Initially, acquire all of the necessary preoperative data and analyze data to precisely define existing deformities. Then, identify the various subunits of the craniofacial skeleton that need mobilization and repositioning to determine the nature of the desired osteotomies and the desired vector of displacement to be applied to the osteotomized segment(s) during the distraction phase. Consider both the magnitude and direction of the distraction vector prior to device selection, osteotomy design, and device placement.

Preoperative considerations for mandibular distraction include (1) the preexisting shape of the lower jaw (eg, ramus height, body length, gonial angle), (2) its position relative to the maxilla and cranial base, (3) the presence of asymmetry and mandibular and occlusal plane angles, and (4) the occlusion (eg, anteroposterior relationships, transverse relationships, open bite deformities).

Considerations during planning for procedures involving the mid face include (1) the degree of exorbitism, (2) the presence of anteroposterior deficiency within the midfacial bony structures and their position relative to the cranial base (SNA) and the mandible (ANB), (3) the vertical midfacial deficiency or elongation, (4) the maxillary plane and occlusal plane angles, and (5) the occlusal relationships described above.

Selection of the proper distraction device is another important consideration prior to surgery. In general, 2 basic devices are available: internal and external.

  • Internal devices
    • For the most part, internal devices are buried (with both the fixation components and the distraction mechanism) under soft tissue cover. A small rod extrudes through skin or mucosa, which allows turning of the distraction mechanism. Internal devices are suitable in large bones and have the advantage of being less obtrusive and visible during the distraction and consolidation phase. Their point of application is closer to the point of distraction resistance; and, therefore, internal devices carry a mechanical advantage.
    • However, applying internal devices to small bone segments in the younger patient is technically difficult. Furthermore, early editions of internal devices required a second major surgical procedure to remove them following the consolidation phase. Newer models are being designed whereby the transport mechanism is removed through small incisions following disengagement from the fixation components, which are left in situ.
  • External devices: These have the distraction mechanism located outside the skin or mucosa and attach to the bone segments by either transcutaneous pins or wires. External devices tend to have greater flexibility in their range of movement and allow alteration of the distraction vector during the distraction phase. They can be applied to smaller bone segments, and removal is relatively easy. They are cumbersome and visible when in situ, however, and depending on the application, can produce significant soft tissue scars at the pin tracts.

The planning phase requires careful cooperation between surgeon and orthodontist if skeletal movements affect dentition. At the initial surgery, appropriate bone cuts are performed and the distraction appliances are secured.

Next

Intraoperative Details

Use of the distraction technique requires the same operative exposure as conventional craniofacial surgery. Recent studies, however, are looking at less-invasive surgery using endoscopic techniques to complement DO. Completion of the osteotomies is performed as per the preoperative plan. However, prior to complete mobilization of the segments, the distraction appliance is secured to either end of the osteotomy in the predetermined direction of the distraction vector. After loosening the segments, a test distraction should be performed to ensure that the appliances are working and that the bone segments are sufficiently mobilized. The appliances are then returned to the neutral position.

Previous
Next

Postoperative Details

Depending on the procedure, patients generally require a 1- to 5-day postsurgical in-hospital course. Place patients on prophylactic antibiotics and allow a suitable waiting period or latency phase to elapse prior to commencing the distraction phase. During the distraction phase, frequently see patients in the office to ensure that they are advancing the devices. (Periodic plain radiography is useful for this purpose.) After distraction, allow consolidation to occur and subsequently remove the distraction devices.

Previous
Next

Complications

A number of problems can arise with the distraction process (eg, patient noncompliance, device failure, premature fusion of the segments undergoing distraction).[11] These problems necessitate a repeat surgical procedure to reosteotomize the bone segments. Infection at the distraction site may impair the osteogenesis process. During the consolidation phase, nonunion or delayed union results if micromovement across the regenerate occurs. Excessive scarring is also possible, particularly when using external devices. Finally, a relative lack of control in repositioning the bone segments exists compared with conventional surgery, which leads to a less-than-ideal final position.

Previous
Next

Outcome and Prognosis

Distraction osteogenesis (DO) holds great potential for various osseous defects that can be encountered within the craniofacial skeleton.[12] Numerous advantages seem to be emerging with the technique. The initial osteotomy procedure is less invasive and does not carry the attendant limitations and complications that may be associated with conventional bony mobilization and repositioning. Furthermore, the potential for substantially larger movements and greater postoperative stability exists. Surgical intervention is possible in the very young patient and, apparently, much earlier than with standard craniofacial technique.

DO, however, does not correct underlying growth disturbances in craniofacial patients. DO does not reduce the need for orthodontic intervention, and it carries the disadvantage of requiring a second procedure to remove the distraction appliances. As experience with DO accumulates, this technique is becoming established as an essential tool in the craniofacial surgeon's armamentarium. The indications in which it is the standard of care are slowly being defined.

Previous
Next

Future and Controversies

Several new developments are on the horizon in the field of craniofacial DO. A successful combination of endoscopic techniques to create osteotomies and insert distraction devices will move distraction into the field of minimally invasive surgery. New work using bioresorbable materials may lead to the implementation of devices that do not require a second surgical procedure to remove them and following resorption leave no trace that they had ever been inserted. In addition, use of microprocessors and miniature motorized distraction devices may provide the ability to insert submerged appliances capable of auto-distraction according to preprogrammed data.

Previous
 
Contributor Information and Disclosures
Author

Mario J Imola, MD, DDS, FRCS, FACS, FRCSC Consulting Staff, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Center for Craniofacial and Skull Base Surgery, Colorado Facial Plastic Surgery

Mario J Imola, MD, DDS, FRCS, FACS, FRCSC is a member of the following medical societies: AO Foundation, American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association, American Head and Neck Society, The Triological Society, American Medical Association, Canadian Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Canadian Society of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, Colorado Medical Society, North American Skull Base Society

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Specialty Editor Board

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Received salary from Medscape for employment. for: Medscape.

David W Stepnick, MD Associate Professor, Departments of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery and Plastic Surgery, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, MetroHealth Medical Center

David W Stepnick, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, American Medical Association, Society of University Otolaryngologists-Head and Neck Surgeons, American College of Surgeons

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

Arlen D Meyers, MD, MBA Professor of Otolaryngology, Dentistry, and Engineering, University of Colorado School of Medicine

Arlen D Meyers, MD, MBA is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, American Head and Neck Society

Disclosure: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant or trustee for: Cerescan;RxRevu;SymbiaAllergySolutions<br/>Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Symbia<br/>Received from Allergy Solutions, Inc for board membership; Received honoraria from RxRevu for chief medical editor; Received salary from Medvoy for founder and president; Received consulting fee from Corvectra for senior medical advisor; Received ownership interest from Cerescan for consulting; Received consulting fee from Essiahealth for advisor; Received consulting fee from Carespan for advisor; Received consulting fee from Covidien for consulting.

Additional Contributors

Jaime R Garza, MD, DDS, FACS Consulting Staff, Private Practice

Jaime R Garza, MD, DDS, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, American College of Surgeons, American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, American Society of Maxillofacial Surgeons, Texas Medical Association, Texas Society of Plastic Surgeons

Disclosure: Received none from Allergan for speaking and teaching; Received none from LifeCell for consulting; Received grant/research funds from GID, Inc. for other.

References
  1. Ilizarov GA. The principles of the Ilizarov method. Bull Hosp Jt Dis Orthop Inst. 1988 Spring. 48(1):1-11. [Medline].

  2. Costantino PD, Friedman CD, Shindo ML, et al. Experimental mandibular regrowth by distraction osteogenesis. Long-term results. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1993 May. 119(5):511-6. [Medline].

  3. Taylor JA, Derderian CA, Bartlett SP, Fiadjoe JE, Sussman EM, Stricker PA. Perioperative Morbidity in Posterior Cranial Vault Expansion: Distraction Osteogenesis versus Conventional Osteotomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Apr. 129(4):674e-80e. [Medline].

  4. McCarthy JG, Schreiber J, Karp N, et al. Lengthening the human mandible by gradual distraction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1992 Jan. 89(1):1-8; discussion 9-10. [Medline].

  5. Marchac A, Arnaud E. Cranium and midface distraction osteogenesis: current practices, controversies, and future applications. J Craniofac Surg. 2012 Jan. 23(1):235-8. [Medline].

  6. Donneys A, Tchanque-Fossuo CN, Farberg AS, Deshpande SS, Buchman SR. Bone regeneration in distraction osteogenesis demonstrates significantly increased vascularity in comparison to fracture repair in the mandible. J Craniofac Surg. 2012 Jan. 23(1):328-32. [Medline].

  7. Tibesar RJ, Sidman JD. Mandibular distraction osteogenesis in the pediatric patient. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008 Dec. 16(6):548-54. [Medline].

  8. Higuera S, Cole P, Stephenson JB, Hollier L. Distraction rate and latency: factors in the outcome of paediatric maxillary distraction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2008 Nov 5. [Medline].

  9. Tahiri Y, Taylor J. An Update on Midface Advancement Using Le Fort II and III Distraction Osteogenesis. Semin Plast Surg. 2014 Nov. 28 (4):184-92. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  10. Dauria D, Marsh JL. Mandibular distraction osteogenesis for Pierre Robin sequence: what percentage of neonates need it?. J Craniofac Surg. 2008 Sep. 19(5):1237-43. [Medline].

  11. Chen PK, Por YC, Liou EJ, Chang FC. The effect of cleft maxillary distraction osteogenesis on the levator veli palatini and velopharyngeal function. J Craniofac Surg. 2015 May. 26 (3):687-90. [Medline].

  12. Al-Daghreer S, Flores-Mir C, El-Bialy T. Long-term stability after craniofacial distraction osteogenesis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008 Sep. 66(9):1812-9. [Medline].

  13. Reddy LV, Elhadi HM. Maxillary advancement by distraction osteogenesis. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2008 Sep. 16(2):237-47. [Medline].

  14. [Guideline] Persing J, James H, Swanson J, Kattwinkel J. Prevention and management of positional skull deformities in infants. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine, Section on Plastic Surgery and Section on Neurological Surgery. Pediatrics. 2003 Jul. 112(1 Pt 1):199-202. [Medline].

  15. Cohen SR, Rutrick RE, Burstein FD. Distraction osteogenesis of the human craniofacial skeleton: initial experience with new distraction system. J Craniofac Surg. 1995 Sep. 6(5):368-74. [Medline].

  16. Imola MJ. Craniofacial distraction osteogenesis. Current Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001. 9:238-248.

  17. Imola MJ, Hamlar DD, Thatcher G, et al. The versatility of distraction osteogenesis in craniofacial surgery. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2002 Jan-Mar. 4(1):8-19. [Medline].

  18. Molina F, Ortiz Monasterio F. Mandibular elongation and remodeling by distraction: a farewell to majorosteotomies. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995 Sep. 96(4):825-40; discussion 841-2. [Medline].

  19. Toth BA, Kim JW, Chin M, Cedars M. Distraction osteogenesis and its application to the midface and bony orbit in craniosynostosis syndromes. J Craniofac Surg. 1998 Mar. 9(2):100-13; discussion 119-22. [Medline].

 
Previous
Next
 
Intraoperative photographs of distractor placement.
Typical airway changes after mandibular distraction.
 
 
 
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2016 by WebMD LLC. This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.