Alterations in Sphenoid Anatomy in Craniosynostosis: Implications for Fronto-Orbital Advancement.

OBJECTIVE: Fronto-orbital advancement involves removal of the fronto-orbital bandeau. Visualization of the saw blade is lost as it passes through the fronto-orbital-sphenoid junction (FOSJ), placing the temporal lobe at risk of injury. We aim to provide a 3D analysis of the space surrounding this osteotomy to differentiate various types of craniosynostoses. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Institutional. PATIENTS: Thirty patients with isolated unicoronal synostosis, nonsyndromic bicoronal synostosis, metopic synostosis, Apert syndrome, Crouzon syndrome, and Muenke syndrome. INTERVENTIONS: CT scans conducted between 2 months to 2 years of age were 3D reconstructed to compare craniometrics against normal controls. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Craniometrics. RESULTS: The mean bone thickness of the FOSJ at the level of the supraorbital rim was significantly small for the Apert, unicoronal and bicoronal groups. The mean vertical height of the middle cranial fossa from the lesser sphenoid wing was significantly greater in the unicoronal group. The mean vertical height of the tip of the temporal lobe from the lateral sphenoid ridge was greater in the unicoronal, isolated bicoronal, and Apert groups. The mean corneal protrusion beyond the lateral orbital rim was significantly greater in the Apert and unicoronal groups. The mean horizontal depth of the orbit was smallest in the Apert group. The mean vertical distance between the dacryon and the foramen cecum, and the mean volume of temporal lobe beneath the sphenoid shelf were the largest in the Apert group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with Apert syndrome have the most unfavorable morphology of the anterior and middle cranial fossae.

A Scoping Review of Innervated Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: After breast surgery, patients experience significant alterations to breast sensation, which can diminish quality of life. Nerve coaptation technique, introduced in the 1990s, has gained traction in recent years. We performed a scoping review of the literature to determine the available outcomes in sensate breast reconstruction. METHODS: The review was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews statement guidelines. EMBASE and PubMed databases were queried using standardized terminology. Studies were included if they reported original sensory outcomes following innervation techniques during breast reconstruction and were published from January 1, 1990, to April 18, 2022. Data extraction and analyses were performed on Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: From 602 screened articles, 27 studies met the inclusion criteria. Innervated autologous reconstructive procedures were described in 24, whereas the remaining 3 (all published after 2019) described direct reinnervation of the nipple-areola complex. Most (88.9%) of the studies comparing innervated versus noninnervated reconstruction reported improved sensory outcomes in at least 1 modality. Two studies investigated patient-reported outcomes using validated questionnaires, both of which reported improvement with innervated reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Sensate breast reconstruction has the potential to improve outcomes for patients. There is a recent progressive increase in studies involving direct nipple-areolar reinnervation. Larger, prospective studies are needed to better characterize the quality-of-life outcome using validated scales, as well as evaluate sensory and patient-reported outcomes with implant and autologous reconstruction.

Comparison of methodologies for craniofacial soft-tissue cephalometrics: The value of virtual reality.

BACKGROUND: Myriad options are available for plastic surgeons to perform soft-tissue analysis, which is vital to perioperative evaluation and research. Our objective is to compare the accuracy, precision, and efficiency of the available cephalometric modalities for conducting facial soft-tissue measurements. METHODS: Twenty soft-tissue facial measurements were performed by 5 measurers with varying experiences on 5 adult subjects, using 6 methods-manual calipers, cone-beam CT, virtual reality (VR), 3D stereophotogrammetry, iPad-based 3D photogrammetry, and 2-dimensional photographs. Measurement sessions were timed and performed in triplicate, for a total of 9000 measurements. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated for accuracy and one-way ANOVA was used for comparison. The coefficient of variation (CoV) was compared among groups to evaluate the precision of different methods by considering caliper measurements as the gold standard. RESULTS: ICC among raters was 0.932, indicating excellent reliability. VR was significantly faster than other methods (137 s vs. 217 s for caliper, p < 0.001). CoV was the highest for 2D photographs and the lowest for VR (11.0 vs. 6.4, p < 0.001). The CoV of the caliper was similar to that of other methods, except for 2D photography, which was significantly higher. Measurements with the greatest absolute difference from caliper measurements, across modalities, were those around the eyes (left to right exocanthion), tragion to antitragion, and tragion to exocanthion. CONCLUSION: 2D photography is not an accurate method for cephalometric measurements. VR had the lowest variation between measurements, and was the fastest and equivalent to caliper measurements in accuracy. For studies involving a large number of cephalometrics, VR measurements may be a good option to improve study throughput.

Craniometric and Aesthetic Outcomes in Craniosynostosis Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the published comparative aesthetic outcomes, and its determinants, for craniosynostoses surgically treated by minimally-invasive cranial procedures and open cranial vault remodeling (CVR). DESIGN: PRISMA-compliant systematic review. SETTING: Not-applicable. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Articles were included if they compared spring cranioplasty, strip minimally-invasive craniectomy or CVR for outcomes related to aesthetics or head shape. Forty-two studies were included, comprising 2402 patients. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The craniometric and PROM used to determine surgical outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies (59%) evaluated sagittal craniosynostosis, with metopic (7;17%) and unicoronal (4;10%) the next most prevalent. Thirty-eight studies (90%) included CVR, 24 (57%) included strip craniectomy with helmeting, 9 (22%) included strip craniectomy without helmeting, 11 (26%) included spring cranioplasty, and 3 (7%) included vault distraction. A majority of studies only used 1 (43%) or 2 (14%) craniometric measures to compare techniques. In sagittal synostosis, 13 (59%) studies showed no difference in craniometric outcomes, 5 (23%) showed better results with CVR, 3 (14%) with strip craniectomy, and 1 (5%) with springs. In studies describing other synostoses, 10/14 (71%) were equivocal. Subjective outcome measures followed similar trends. Meta-analysis shows no significant difference in cranial index (CI) outcomes between CVR and less invasive procedures in patients with sagittal synostosis. CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference in CI outcomes between CVR and less invasive procedures. The majority of literature comparing craniometric and aesthetic outcomes between CVR and less invasive procedures shows equivocal results for sagittal synostosis. However, the heterogeneity of data for other craniosynostoses did not allow meta-analysis.

Differences in Practice in Alveolar Bone Grafting Among American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association Members.

The purpose of this study is to determine areas of agreement and disagreement among American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association (ACPA)members in the clinical practice of alveolar bone grafting (ABG), to guide further research to optimize ABG practices.A cross-sectional survey was conducted.The respondents were in an academic, combination, or private practice.The respondents were either plastic or oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMFS) from various countries.A de-identified 24-question online survey was distributed to ACPA surgeon members utilizing the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) tool.Data collected included surgeon specialty, use of various alveolar bone graft surgical techniques, as well as protocols.There was more variability than consensus between specialties with regards to the preoperative workup, timing of surgery, materials used for bone graft, surgical techniques, perioperative management, and postoperative evaluation. There was consensus on grafting during mixed dentition, not staging soft and hard tissue closure, and using iliac crest for primary and secondary grafting. Disagreements involved factors used to time the procedure and type of imaging used to assess viability. Technical differences involved incision type, part of bone grafted, use of minimally invasive technique, and material used for revisions.Aside from areas of consensus among surgeons on ABG, several areas, including use of bone substitutes in revision grafting, incision and type of iliac crest graft used during initial grafting, and postoperative protocols, had no consensus. These areas should be targets of further research to determine if there truly is an optimal method to perform ABG.The study was approved by the University of Illinois at Chicago Institutional Review Board. A de-identified 24-question online survey was distributed to surgeon members of the ACPA utilizing the REDCap tool on August 7, 2020. The survey questions consisted of multiple choice and multiple selection questions including an option to select "other" and specify the information in a blank space. Data collected included surgeon specialty, use of various alveolar bone graft surgical techniques, as well as pre and postoperative protocols. The full survey is included in online Supplemental material. Data analysis was performed in SPSS Statistics 27 (IBM Corp.). Descriptive statistics were performed, and chi-square was used to test for significant differences in survey responses between groups.

A Systematic Review of Primary Rhinoplasty in Patients With Bilateral Cleft Lip.

BACKGROUND: Primary rhinoplasty (PR)at the time of cleft lip repair is controversial. We previously performed a systematic review that supported PR during unilateral cleft lip repair. We now aim to determine whether the same idea translates to care of patients with bilateral cleft lip. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement guidelines. PubMed and Embase databases were searched for studies that met our inclusion criteria: (1) English language, (2) human subjects, (3) rhinoplasty at the time of bilateral cleft lip repair, and (4) evaluation of nasal outcome. Studies were excluded in case of: (1) inclusion of a large proportion of syndromic patients, (2) case reports, (3) editorials, (4) letters, (5) reviews, and (6) exclusive to unilateral clefts. Out of 281 studies that showed up on initial search, 12 were included in our review. Research quality and level of evidence rating were determined for each study. RESULTS: Of the 12 included studies, 9 supported PR at the time of bilateral cleft lip repair; 8 studies evaluated nasal growth and found no restriction over time; 4 studies followed 158 patients to an average of 15 years and showed 77% did not need secondary rhinoplasty. CONCLUSION: Although the available literature supports PR in patients with bilateral cleft lip with respect to subjective and objective outcomes, nasal growth, and reducing the need for secondary/revision rhinoplasty, there are significant limitations, necessitating large volume studies.

The Effect of Wearing a Mask on Facial Attractiveness.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated masking in public spaces. Masks may impact the perceived attractiveness of individuals and hence, interpersonal relations. Objectives: To determine if facial coverings affect attractiveness. Methods: An online survey was conducted using 114 headshot images, 2 each-unmasked and masked-of 57 individuals. Two hundred and seven participants rated them on an ordinal scale from 1 (least attractive) to 10 (most attractive). Parametric and nonparametric tests were performed, as appropriate, for comparison. Results: For the first quartile, the average rating increased significantly when wearing a mask (5.89 ± 0.29 and 6.54 ± 0.67; P = 0.01). For control images ranked within the fourth quartile, the average rating decreased significantly when wearing a mask (7.60 ± 0.26 and 6.62 ± 0.55; P < 0.001). In the female subgroup (n = 34), there was a small increase in average rating when masked, whereas in the male subgroup (n = 23), there was a small decrease in average rating when masked, but the change was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). For unmasked female images ranked within the first quartile, the average rating increased significantly when wearing a mask (5.77 ± 0.27 and 6.76 ± 0.36; P = 0.001). For the female subgroup with mean ratings within the fourth quartile, the average decreased significantly when wearing a medical mask (7.53 ± 0.30 and 6.77 ± 0.53; P < 0.05). For unmasked male images ranked within the first quartile, the average rating increased when wearing a medical mask but the change was not statistically significant (P > 0.05), whereas for the control male images within the fourth quartile, the average rating decreased significantly when masked (7.72 ± 0.18 and 6.50 ± 0.54; P < 0.05). Conclusions: While wearing a facial covering significantly increased attractiveness for images less attractive at baseline, and decreased attractiveness for those that are more attractive at baseline; it did not cause a significant overall change in attractiveness in the study population.