Role of lumbar interspinous distraction on the neural elements.

The interspinous distraction devices are used to treat variable pathologies ranging from facet syndrome, diskogenic low back pain, degenerative spinal stenosis, diskopathy, spondylolisthesis, and instability. The insertion of a posterior element with an interspinous device (ISD) is commonly judged responsive to a relative kyphosis of a lumbar segment with a moderate but persistent increase of the spinal canal and of the foraminal width and area, and without influence on low-grade spondylolisthesis. The consequence is the need of shared specific biomechanical concepts to give for each degenerative problem the right indication through a critical analysis of all available experimental and clinical biomechanical data. We reviewed systematically the available clinical and experimental data about kyphosis, enlargement of the spinal canal, distraction of the interspinous distance, increase of the neural foramina, ligamentous structures, load of the posterior annulus, intradiskal pressure, strength of the spinous processes, degeneration of the adjacent segment, complications, and cost-effectiveness of the ISD. The existing literature does not provide actual scientific evidence over the superiority of the ISD strategy, but most of the experimental and clinical data show a challenging potential. These considerations are applicable with different types of ISD with only few differences between the different categories. Despite--or because of--the low invasiveness of the surgical implantation of the ISD, this technique promises to play a major role in the future degenerative lumbar microsurgery. The main indications for ISD remain lumbar spinal stenoses and painful facet arthroses. A clear documented contraindication is the presence of an anterolisthesis. Nevertheless, the existing literature does not provide evidence of superiority of outcome and cost-effectiveness of the ISD strategy over laminectomy or other surgical procedures. At this time, the devices should be used in clinical randomized independent trials in order to obtain more information concerning the most advantageous optimal indication or, in selected cases, to treat tailored indications.

Distraction osteogenesis versus fibula free flap for mandibular reconstruction after gunshot injury: socioeconomic and technical comparisons.

BACKGROUND: Since the birth of maxillofacial surgery, ballistic injuries are a real challenge for surgeons. For more than 20 years, fibula free flap (FFF) became the criterion standard for mandibular reconstructions. But FFF is not always the perfect answer for mandibular reconstruction, and a technique named distraction osteogenesis (DO) was raised. The purposes of this study are to estimate the financial cost and reattempt for the patient each techniques in our experience to determine the best-choice criteria for mandibular reconstruction after gunshot injury. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study over the last 15 years, including 15 patients with a mandibular ballistic injury. Ten patients were treated with FFF, and 5 with DO. We evaluated the complications and morbidity encountered with each technique. We also decided to estimate the cost of different rehabilitations, including the cost of the device and hospitalization. RESULTS: In our study, the global cost of the DO protocol appears as not more expensive than the FFF one. Postoperative complications encountered during the FFF protocols were related to donor-site morbidity. The DO patient had pseudoarthrosis, mucosa irritation, or local infection. DISCUSSION: Our study demonstrated both the economic and technical interest of DO compared with the FFF for mandibular reconstruction. Thus, nowadays, DO appears as an alternative to the FFF for mandibular reconstruction, the main decisional criterion being the evaluation of the tissues dilapidated during the initial traumatism, but social environment of the patient shall also be considered.

[Class II malocclusion. Time and cost of a combined orthodontic and surgical treatment]. / Klasse II-malocclusie. Duur en kosten van een gecombineerde orthodontische en chirurgische behandeling.

During orthodontic treatment of 29 patients with a Class II malocclusion, the remaining overjet was corrected surgically by intraoral mandibular distraction osteogenesis. The patients were divided in two groups. Group A was treated orthodontically in a two-phase approach, using functional and fixed appliances. Group B was treated in a one-phase approach with only fixed appliances. Before treatment the differences in age, gender and severity of the malocclusion between the groups, were not statistically significant. After distraction-osteogenesis, all orthodontic treatments could be finished successfully. The mean treatment time was for group A 44.2 and for group B 28.6 months. The difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). The mean orthodontic treatment time after distraction osteogenesis was 9.1 months. The mean cost for the orthodontic treatment was not statistically significant different between the groups.

Tracheostomy versus mandibular distraction osteogenesis in Canadian children with Pierre Robin sequence: a comparative cost analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Upper airway obstruction in newborns with Pierre Robin sequence (PRS) may be severe enough to require a surgical intervention. Tracheostomy has been the traditional gold standard, but mandibular distraction osteogenesis (MDO) has been proven to be an effective alternative procedure. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to conduct the first comparative cost analysis between tracheostomy and MDO in Canada. METHODS: All patients with PRS who underwent tracheostomy or MDO between January 2005 and December 2010 were included. Tracheostomy and MDO procedures were broken down into individual components, and the associated costs for these components were totaled. The average per-patient cost for each modality was then compared. RESULTS: During the study period, 52 children underwent either a tracheostomy (n  =  31) or MDO (n  =  21). The average age at surgery, gender, and presence of associated syndromes were similar in both groups. Taking into account the cost of the surgeries, health care professional fees, and hospital stay, the total per-patient treatment cost was determined to be $57,648.55 for MDO and $92,164.45 for tracheostomy. The majority of the cost for the tracheostomy group was associated with prolonged hospital stay after the operation ($72,827.85). Overall, the average per-patient cost was 1.6 times greater in the tracheostomy group compared to the MDO group (p  =  .039). CONCLUSION: The initial cost of MDO was less than the tracheostomy cost for newborns with PRS and severe upper airway obstruction at our health care centre. Further prospective analysis considering the long-term costs is required to possibly reduce long-term health care costs.