Dissection in the subgaleal and subperiosteal plane: Implications on scalp wound healing

Transfacial Two-pin External Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis: A Technique for Neonatal Airway Obstruction from Robin Sequence

Surgical management in those with moderate-to-severe airway obstruction includes tongue-lip adhesion, tracheostomy, and/or mandibular distraction osteogenesis. This article describes a transfacial two-pin external device technique for mandibular distraction osteogenesis, utilizing minimal dissection.

Methods

The first percutaneous pin is transcutaneously placed just inferior to the sigmoid notch parallel to the interpupillary line. The pin is then advanced through the pterygoid musculature at the base of the pterygoid plates, toward the contralateral ramus, and exits the skin. A second parallel pin is placed spanning the bilateral mandibular parasymphysis distal to the region of the future canine. With the pins in place, bilateral high ramus transverse corticotomies are performed. Using univector distractor devices, the length of activation varies, with the goal of overdistraction to achieve a class III relationship of the alveolar ridges. Consolidation is limited to a 1:1 period with the activation phase, and removal is performed by cutting and pulling the pins out of the face.

Results

To guide optimal transcutaneous pin placement, transfacial pins were then placed through twenty segmented mandibles. Mean upper pin (UP) distance was 20.7 ± 1.1 mm from the tragus. The distance between the cutaneous entry of the UP and lower pin was 23.5 ± 0.9 mm, and the tragion-UP-lower pin angle was 118.7 ± 2.9°.

Conclusions

The two-pin technique has potential advantages regarding nerve injury and mandibular growth, given an intraoral approach with limited dissection. It may safely be performed on neonates whose small size may preclude the use of internal distractor devices.

Risk of Complications in Primary Versus Revision-Type Cranioplasty

INTRODUCTION

Cranioplasty (CP) is a multifaceted procedure in a heterogenous patient population, with a high risk for complication. However, no previous large-scale studies have compared outcomes in primary (ie, first attempt) CP versus revision CP (ie, following previous attempts). The authors, therefore, analyzed long-term outcomes of 506 consecutive primary and revision CPs, performed by a single surgeon.

METHODS

All CPs performed between 2012 and 2019 were analyzed under IRB protocol approval. Surgeries were categorized as either primary (no previous CP; n = 279) or revision CP (at least one previous CP; n = 227). Complications were defined as either major or minor. Subgroup analyses investigated whether or not CP complication risk directly correlated with the number of previous neuro-cranial surgeries and/or CP attempts.

RESULTS

The primary CP group experienced a major complication rate of 9% (26/279). In comparison, the revision CP group demonstrated a major complication rate of 32% (73/227). For the revision CP group, the rate of major complications rose with each additional surgery, from 4% (1 prior surgery) to 17% (2 prior surgeries) to 39% (3-4 prior surgeries) to 47% (≥5 prior surgeries).

CONCLUSION

In a review of 506 consecutive cases, patients undergoing revision CP had a 3-fold increase in incidence of major complications, as compared to those undergoing primary CP. These results provide critical insight into overall CP risk stratification and may guide preoperative risk-benefit discussions. Furthermore, these findings may support a center-of-excellence care model, particularly for those patients with a history of previous neuro-cranial surgeries and/or CP attempts.