+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

The cranial orbital buttress technique for nonsyndromic unicoronal and metopic craniosynostosis

The cranial orbital buttress technique for nonsyndromic unicoronal and metopic craniosynostosis

Neurosurgical Focus 38(5): E4

OBJECT Current craniosynostosis procedures can result in complications due to absorbable plates and screws or other specialized expensive hardware. The authors propose the cranial orbital buttress (COB) technique of frontoorbital remodeling for metopic and unicoronal synostoses, wherein no plates or screws are used. They hypothesize that, with this technique, aesthetically acceptable outcomes for unicoronal and metopic synostosis can be achieved. In this article, they present this technique and compare the results with current frontoorbital remodeling practices. METHODS The authors conducted a retrospective chart review of cases in which patients with nonsyndromic unicoronal or metopic synostosis underwent cranio-orbital surgery at their institution from 1985 through 2009. Operative parameters, surgical variations, and complications were analyzed. The COB technique uses a 1-piece switch, hemiforeheads, or multiple pieces for forehead remodeling. The supraorbital bar is reconstructed in patients with metopic synostosis using a double wedge or greenstick fracture technique, and in patients with unicoronal synostosis a hinge procedure based on a 1.5-orbital osteotomy is used. The supraorbital bar is advanced and supported in place by bone graft(s) inserted at the lateral aspect(s) of the orbit(s) to form a buttress, with fixation done using absorbable sutures. RESULTS A total of 79 cases met the criteria for inclusion in the study. Twenty-nine patients had metopic synostosis, 3 had combined metopic and sagittal synostoses, and 47 had unicoronal synostosis. The patients' mean age at surgery was 11.4 ± 10.1 months and the mean operative time was 183.4 ± 41.0 minutes. The mean length of hospital stay was 3.7 ± 1.2 days. The mean blood loss was 150.0 ± 125.6 ml, and 33% of patients required a blood transfusion (mean volume 206.9 ± 102.3 ml). In metopic synostosis, hemiforeheads were used most often (24/29, 83%), and the supraorbital bar was remodeled using a bilateral intracranial orbital osteotomy followed by a double wedge modification (23/29, 79%) or a greenstick fracture (4/29 14%) for milder cases. Forehead remodeling for unicoronal synostosis was by a forehead switch (39/47, 83%) and the supraorbital bar was remodeled using a 1.5-orbital intracranial orbital osteotomy (34/47, 72%) such that the bar was advanced on the abnormal side and hinged at the midline of the normal orbit. Perioperative complications occurred in 19% of cases and included dural tears (16%), inconsequential subdural hematoma (1.3%), and nasal greenstick fracture (1.3%). The total reoperation rate was 7.6% (cranioplasties for irregular contours, 6.3%; scar revision, 1.3%). CONCLUSIONS The COB remodeling technique is simple and efficient, gives acceptable outcomes, and is less resource intensive than previous techniques reported in the literature.

Please choose payment method:

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 059051094

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 25929966

DOI: 10.3171/2015.2.focus14844

Related references

A critical evaluation of long-term aesthetic outcomes of fronto-orbital advancement and cranial vault remodeling in nonsyndromic unicoronal craniosynostosis. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 135(1): 220-231, 2015

New technique for reconstructing the affected cranium and orbital rim in unicoronal craniosynostosis. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery 20(1): 194-197, 2009

Brain morphology in nonsyndromic unicoronal craniosynostosis. Anatomical Record. Part A Discoveries in Molecular Cellular and Evolutionary Biology 285(2): 690-698, 2005

Surgical Treatment of Nonsyndromic Unicoronal Craniosynostosis. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery 29(5): 1199-1207, 2018

The Directive Growth Approach for Nonsyndromic, Unicoronal Craniosynostosis: Patient and Clinical Outcomes. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery 28(8): 2108-2112, 2017

Simultaneous unicoronal and sagittal distraction osteogenesis for the treatment of nonsyndromic multisutural craniosynostosis. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery 26(1): 214-216, 2015

A Craniometric Analysis of Cranial Base and Cranial Vault Differences in Patients With Metopic Craniosynostosis. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery 28(8): 2030-2035, 2017

An evaluation of complications, revisions, and long-term aesthetic outcomes in nonsyndromic metopic craniosynostosis. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 133(6): 1453-1464, 2014

Testing causal mechanisms of nonsyndromic craniosynostosis using path analysis of cranial contents in rabbits with uncorrected craniosynostosis. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal 43(5): 524-531, 2006

Ophthalmologic Outcomes Following Fronto-Orbital Advancement for Unicoronal Craniosynostosis. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery 27(7): 1629-1635, 2016

Long-term results following fronto-orbital reconstruction in nonsyndromic unicoronal synostosis. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 121(5): 251e-260e, 2008

A Volumetric and Craniometric Analysis of Cranial Base Differences in Unicoronal Craniosynostosis. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery 28(7): 1725-1729, 2017

Unicoronal Craniosynostosis and Plagiocephaly Correction with Fronto-orbital Bone Remodeling and Advancement. Annals of Maxillofacial Surgery 7(1): 108-111, 2017

The value of tranexamic acid during fronto-orbital advancement in isolated metopic craniosynostosis. Journal of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery 43(7): 1239-1243, 2015

Surgical Correction of Metopic Craniosynostosis: A 3-D Photogrammetric Analysis of Cranial Vault Outcomes. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal 56(2): 231-235, 2019