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.

Positional Plagiocephaly and Craniosynostosis.

Along with the decrease in sudden infant death syndrome due to the successful "Back to Sleep" Campaign, there was a reciprocal increase in cases of positional plagiocephaly (PP). The prevalence of PP significantly rose from approximately 5% to upward of 46% at age 7 months. Consequently, clinicians have seen a surge in the number of patients presenting with head shape abnormalities. Not only does this increase in patient volume pose a logistical problem to clinics, but it also poses a potential risk to patients with craniosynostosis, whose head shape anomalies are similar to a "needle in a haystack" of patients with more common PP. This review explores the causes, risk factors, and treatment options of PP and craniosynostosis, along with the differential of head shape anomalies based on phenotypic presentation. In doing so, we hope to provide pediatric care clinicians with the tools necessary to effectively evaluate and manage patients with head shape abnormalities. [Pediatr Ann. 2023;52(1):e10-e17.].

Primary Cleft Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review of Results, Growth Restriction, and Avoiding Secondary Rhinoplasty.

BACKGROUND: Primary rhinoplasty during correction of unilateral cleft lip continues to be a topic of debate because of concerns that early nasal intervention may affect nasal and maxillary development over the long term. This study aims to determine the volume and quality of evidence for and against primary unilateral cleft rhinoplasty. METHODS: A systematic review was performed adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Articles were pulled from PubMed and EMBASE and screened by title and abstract. Studies with human participants undergoing rhinoplasty at the time of unilateral cleft lip repair and some evaluation of the nasal outcome were included. Studies with a large proportion of syndromic patients, case reports, editorials, letters, reviews, studies exclusive to bilateral clefts, and studies not available in English were excluded. Those that met criteria were then systematically reviewed. RESULTS: Twenty-five articles were included. Ten articles that assessed the results of primary rhinoplasty subjectively all supported cleft lip repair with primary rhinoplasty. Sixteen articles assessed the results of primary rhinoplasty objectively, with 15 supporting primary rhinoplasty during cleft lip repair. Eight of nine studies that evaluated nasal growth and development over time found no restriction in nasal development. Five studies with a follow-up period of at least 6 years found that the percentage of patients who avoided revision rhinoplasty ranged from 43% to 100%. There were significant risks of bias in the majority of studies. CONCLUSION: The majority of studies reviewed support that primary rhinoplasty during unilateral cleft lip repair results in good outcomes with limited or no effect on nasal growth.

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.