Midface distraction osteogenesis: Internal vs. external devices
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：T.R. Meling<sup>1sup><sup> ; sup><sup>torsteinrmeling@mailcity.comsup> ; H.-E. Hø ; gevold<sup>2sup> ; B.J. Due-Tø ; nnessen<sup>1sup> ; P. Skjelbred<sup>3sup>
- 关键词：craniosynostosis ; maxillary hypoplasia ; distraction osteogenesis ; midface advancement ; LeFort III ; monobloc.
- 刊名：International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
- 出版年：2011
- 出版时间：February 2011
- 年：2011
- 卷：40
- 期：2
- 页码：139-145
- 全文大小：544 K
文摘
This study compares internal and external distraction devices in the treatment of midface retrusion. 20 patients were treated with midface distraction (12 Crouzon, 4 Apert, 4 others); 12 with internal distraction (MID device), 8 with external distraction (Red or Blue device). The two groups were compared regarding operation time, peroperative blood loss and complications. The groups were comparable regarding patient age, sex, weight and diagnosis. In the MID-group, 7 of 12 patients (58 % ) underwent Le Fort III, 5 underwent 12 monobloc (32 % ). In the Blue device group, three of eight patients underwent Le Fort II (38 % ), three of eight underwent Le Fort III (38 % ), and two of eight underwent monobloc (25 % ). Operation time was shorter in the Blue device (mean 298 min) than in the MID group (mean 354 min). Peroperative blood loss and complication rates were similar. The internal distraction device is the ‘gold standard’ for treating midface retrusion. The use of an external distraction device in midface distraction osteogenesis is associated with a shorter operation time; peroperative blood loss and complications were similar. An external device affords better 3-dimensional control during the distraction process, so external distraction is preferable in patients who will tolerate this treatment.