Le Fort III Distraction With Internal vs External Distractors

Abstract

Objective:

This study compares the change in midface position following Le Fort III advancement using either rigid external distraction (group 1) or internal distraction (group 2). We hypothesized that, with reference to right-facing cephalometry, internal distraction would result in increased clockwise rotation and inferior displacement of the midface.

Design:

Le Fort III osteotomies and standardized distraction protocols were performed on 10 cadaveric specimens per group. Right-facing lateral cephalograms were traced and compared across time points to determine change in position at points orbitale, anterior nasal spine (ANS), A-point, and angle ANB.

Setting:

Institutional.

Patients, Participants:

Twenty cadaveric head specimens.

Interventions:

Standard subcranial Le Fort III osteotomies were performed from a coronal approach and adequately mobilized. The specified distraction mechanism was applied and advanced by 15 mm.

Main Outcome Measure(s):

Changes of position were calculated at various skeletal landmarks: orbitale, ANS, A-point, and ANB.

Results:

Group 1 demonstrated relatively uniform x-axis advancement with minimal inferior repositioning at the A-point, ANS, and orbitale. Group 2 demonstrated marked variation in x-axis advancement among the 3 points, along with a significant inferior repositioning and clockwise rotation of the midface (P < .0001).

Conclusion:

External distraction resulted in more uniform advancement of the midface, whereas internal distraction resulted in greater clockwise rotation and inferior displacement. External distraction appears to provide increased vector control of the midface, which is important in creating a customized distraction plan based on the patient’s individual occlusal and skeletal needs.

Keywords

Le Fort III midface distraction rigid external distraction distraction osteogenesis craniofacial syndromes internal distraction

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Chin

Toth

. Le Fort III advancement with gradual distraction using internal devices. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;100:819–830.

Fearon

Patel

. Treatment of the syndromic midface with rigid external distraction Le Fort III: a long-term assessment at skeletal maturity. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133:973.

Nout

Cesteleyn

van der Wal

van Adrichem

Mathijssen

Wolvius

. Advancement of the midface, from conventional Le Fort III osteotomy to Le Fort III distraction: review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;37:781–789.

Saltaji

Altalibi

Major

Al-Nuaimi

Tabbaa

Major

Flores-Mir

. Le Fort III distraction osteogenesis versus conventional Le Fort III osteotomy in correction of syndromic midfacial hypoplasia: a systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;72:959–972.

Shetye

Boutros

Grayson

McCarthy

. Midterm follow-up of midface distraction for syndromic craniosynostosis: a clinical and cephalometric study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120:1621–1632.

Shetye

Davidson

Sorkin

Grayson

McCarthy

. Evaluation of three surgical techniques for advancement of the midface in growing children with syndromic craniosynostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:982–994.

Shetye

Giannoutsos

Grayson

McCarthy

. Le Fort III distraction: part I. controlling position and vectors of the midface segment. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:871–878.

Shetye

Grayson

McCarthy

. Le Fort III distraction: controlling position and path of the osteotomized midface segment on a rigid platform. J Craniofac Surg. 2010;21:1118–1121.

Tahiri

Taylor

. An update on midface advancement using Le Fort II and III distraction osteogenesis. Semin Plast Surg. 2014;28:184–192.

10.

Tessier

. The definitive plastic surgical treatment of severe facial deformities of craniofacial dysostosis: Crouzon’s and Apert’s diseases. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1971;48:419–442.