We aimed to quantify the prevalence of perioperative complications attributable to external activation ports in pediatric posterior cranial vault distraction osteogenesis (PCVDO) and to evaluate the influence of distraction protocol parameters on complication risk.
Methods
Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, six databases (2009-2025) were searched for studies reporting complications in children (<18 years) undergoing PCVDO.
Results
Across 25 eligible studies, 154 adverse events were reported, yielding a pooled overall complication rate of 28.1%. Wound infection was most common (13.7%), followed by broken external activation ports (4.5%) and loosened footplates (3.1%). Mechanical failures accounted for 35.7% of all adverse events and frequently necessitated unplanned surgical intervention: 40% required intraoperative adjustment or premature removal of the distraction system. Each additional day of active distraction increased the risk of footplate loosening by 17%, while each additional day of consolidation increased the risk of breakage of the external activation ports by 1%, indicating cumulative mechanical stress on the distraction. External activation ports were associated with an elevated risk of wound infection, mechanical failure, and unplanned return to the operating room in pediatric PCVDO. The mechanical analyses demonstrated that off-axis loading, torque transmission through skin exits, and cumulative cyclic forces during prolonged distraction and consolidation phases could negatively impact device stability and vector fidelity.
Conclusions
These findings highlight the inherent mechanical limitations of externalized subcutaneous craniofacial distraction systems and underscore the need for next-generation, fully internalized, external port-free distraction technologies that optimize biomechanical alignment, reduce soft-tissue morbidity, and enhance clinical reliability.
McCarthyJGSchreiberJKarpNThorneCHGraysonBH. Lengthening the human mandible by gradual distraction. Plast Reconstr Surg.1992;89(1):1–8. doi:10.1097/00006534-199289010-00001
2.
WhiteNEvansMDoverMSNoonsPSolankiGNishikawaH. Posterior calvarial vault expansion using distraction osteogenesis. Child's Nerv Syst.2009;25:231–236. doi:10.1007/s00381-008-0758-6
3.
FoudaMASeltzerLAZappiKHoffmanCPannulloSC. Posterior cranial vault distraction in children with syndromic craniosynostosis: the era of biodegradable materials—a comprehensive review of the literature and proposed novel global application. Child's Nerv Syst.2024;40(3):759–768. doi:10.1007/s00381-023-06221-7
4.
McMillanKLloydMEvansM, et al.Experiences in performing posterior calvarial distraction. J Craniofac Surg. 2017;28(3):664–669. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000003458
5.
ZhangRSLinLOHoppeIC, et al.Evaluation of parental and surgeon stressors and perceptions of distraction osteogenesis in pediatric craniofacial patients: a cross-sectional survey study. Child's Nerv Syst.2018;34:1735–1743. doi:10.1007/s00381-018-3827-5
6.
FoudaMAImahiyeroboTAHoffmanCE. Quantifying the risks: a systematic review and proportional meta-analysis of the perioperative complications of posterior cranial vault distraction osteogenesis in patients with craniosynostosis. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2025;37(3):197–208. doi:10.3171/2025.8.PEDS25315
7.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br Med J.2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71
8.
WellsGASheaBO’ConnellD, et al.The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2000.
9.
BolkerBMBrooksMEClarkCJ, et al.Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol.2009;24(3):127–135. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008
10.
StijnenTHamzaTHÖzdemirP. Random effects meta-analysis of event outcome in the framework of the generalized linear mixed model with applications in sparse data. Stat Med.2010;29(29):3046–3067. doi:10.1002/sim.4040
11.
ViechtbauerW. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw.2010;36:1–48. doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03
12.
HigginsJPThompsonSGDeeksJJAltmanDG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Br Med J.2003;327(7414):557–560. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
13.
EggerMSmithGDSchneiderMMinderC. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br Med J.1997;315(7109):629–634. doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
14.
LiJGeretyPAXuWBartlettSPTaylorJA. A perioperative risk comparison of posterior vault distraction osteogenesis in an older pediatric population. J Craniofac Surg. 2016;27(5):1165–1169. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000002795
15.
SalokorpiNVuolloVSinikumpuJ-J, et al.Increases in cranial volume with posterior cranial vault distraction in 31 consecutive cases. Neurosurgery. 2017;81(5):803–811. doi:10.1093/neuros/nyx125
16.
SataninLTeterinISakharovARoginskyVSerloWSalokorpiN. Experience with resorbable sonic pins for the attachment of distraction devices in posterior cranial vault distraction operations. Child's Nerv Syst.2019;35:851–856. doi:10.1007/s00381-019-04097-0
17.
ZhangRSWesAMNaranS, et al.Posterior vault distraction osteogenesis in nonsyndromic patients: an evaluation of indications and safety. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(3):566–571. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000004230
18.
AfshariFTGalloPSolankiGA, et al.Posterior calvarial distraction in older paediatric population: Single centre paediatric neurosurgery craniofacial unit outcomes. Child's Nerv Syst.2022;38(7):1341–1348. doi:10.1007/s00381-022-05524-5
19.
Al-ShaqsiSChingJANovakCBForrestCR. Morphometric analysis and outcomes following posterior cranial vault distraction in syndromic and multisuture craniosynostosis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg.2023;87:379–386. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2023.10.101
20.
BreakeyRWMercanEvan de LandeLS, et al.Two-center review of posterior vault expansion following a staged or expectant treatment of Crouzon and Apert craniosynostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg.2023;151(3):615–626. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000009925
21.
El-NemrMRichardsonDDuncanC, et al.Posterior vault distraction osteogenesis for craniosynostosis-surgical outcomes over 12 years. J Craniofac Surg. 2025;36(2):491–496. doi:10.1097/scs.0000000000010952
22.
HumphriesLSZapateroZDVuGH, et al.Ten years of posterior cranial vault expansion by means of distraction osteogenesis: an update and critical evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg.2022;150(2):379–391. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000009336
23.
OngJHarshbargerRJIIIKelleyPGeorgeT. Posterior cranial vault distraction osteogenesis: evolution of technique. In: Seminars in plastic surgery. Vol 28, No. 04. Thieme Medical Publishers; 2014:163–178.
24.
SayadiJJLujan-HernandezJGivechianKB, et al.Success of bone ossification after posterior vault distraction osteogenesis in patients with craniosynostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2025;36(3):870–875. doi:10.1097/scs.0000000000010844
25.
SteinbacherDMSkirpanJPuchalaJBartlettSP. Expansion of the posterior cranial vault using distraction osteogenesis. Plast Reconstr Surg.2011;127(2):792–801. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e318200ab83
26.
ThomasGPWallSAJayamohanJ, et al.Lessons learned in posterior cranial vault distraction. J Craniofac Surg. 2014;25(5):1721–1727. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000000995
27.
GoldsteinJAPaligaJTBaileyRLHeuerGGTaylorJA. Posterior vault distraction with midface distraction without osteotomy as a first stage for syndromic craniosynostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2013;24(4):1263–1267. doi:10.1097/SCS.0b013e318286081f
28.
JohnsDAnstadtEDonatoD, et al.Early posterior vault distraction osteogenesis for the treatment of syndromic craniosynostosis. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr.2016;9(3):219–223. doi:10.1055/s-0036-1582455
29.
KomuroYShimizuAShimojiKMiyajimaMAraiH. Posterior cranial vault distraction osteogenesis with barrel stave osteotomy in thetreatment of craniosynostosis. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo).2015;55(8):617–623. doi:10.2176/nmc.ra.2014-0401
30.
MarjiFPBlockLMAnstadtEE, et al.Posterior cranial vault distraction osteogenesis utilizing a posterior—superior distraction vector in the treatment of Mercedes Benz pattern craniosynostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(6):2059–2063. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000007646
31.
ShenWJiYCuiJChenJKongL. Posterior cranial retraction combined with bilateral parietal distraction for children with nonsyndromic craniosynostosis. Ann Plast Surg.2023;90(4):313–318. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000003508
32.
ShimizuAKomuroYShimojiKMiyajimaMAraiH. Quantitative analysis of change in intracranial volume after posterior cranial vault distraction. J Craniofac Surg. 2016;27(5):1135–1138. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000002739
33.
SullivanJSSniderAEFarringtonJ, et al.Posterior cranial vault distraction osteogenesis in the immunocompromised patient. Child's Nerv Syst.2021;37(7):2313–2318. doi:10.1007/s00381-021-05202-y
34.
SunagaASugawaraYKamochiH, et al.Multidirectional cranial distraction osteogenesis with simplified modifications for treating sagittal synostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5(10):e1536. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000001536
RitvanenASavolainenMNowinskiD, et al.Force measurements during posterior calvarial vault osteodistraction: a novel measurement method. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017;45(6):981–989. doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2017.02.013
39.
RobinsonRCO'NealPJRobinsonGH. Mandibular distraction force: laboratory data and clinical correlation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2001;59(5):539–544. doi:10.1053/joms.2001.22688
40.
SuzukiEYSuzukiB. A simple mechanism for measuring and adjusting distraction forces during maxillary advancement. J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2009;67(10):2245–2253. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2009.03.018
41.
IlizarovGA. Osnovnye printsipy chreskostnogo kompressionnogo i distraktsionnogo osteosinteza [Basic principles of transosseous compression and distraction osteosynthesis]. Ortop Travmatol Protez. 1971;32(11):7–15 [Russian].
42.
IlizarovGA. The tension-stress effect on the genesis and growth of tissues: Part II. The influence of the rate and frequency of distraction. Clin Orthop Relat Res.1989;239:263–285. doi:10.1097/00003086-198902000-00029
43.
IlizarovGA. The tension-stress effect on the genesis and growth of tissues: Part I. The influence of stability of fixation and soft-tissue preservation. Clin Orthop Relat Res.1989;238:249–281. doi:10.1097/00003086-198901000-00038
44.
DerderianCAWinkJDMcGrathJLCollinsworthABartlettSPTaylorJA. Volumetric changes in cranial vault expansion: comparison of fronto-orbital advancement and posterior cranial vault distraction osteogenesis. Plast Reconstr Surg.2015;135(6):1665–1672. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000001294
45.
ImaiKKomuneHTodaC, et al.Cranial remodeling to treat craniosynostosis by gradual distraction with a new device. J Neurosurg.2002;96(4):654–659. doi:10.3171/jns.2002.96.4.0654
46.
NonakaYOiSMiyawakiTShinodaAKuriharaK. Indication for and surgical outcomes of the distraction method in various types of craniosynostosis: advantages, disadvantages, and current concepts for surgical strategy in the treatment of craniosynostosis. Child's Nerv Syst.2004;20(10):702–709. doi:10.1007/s00381-004-0917-3
47.
NowinskiDDi RoccoFRenierDSainteRoseCLeikolaJArnaudE. Posterior cranial vault expansion in the treatment of craniosynostosis. comparison of current techniques. Child's Nerv Syst.2012;28(9):1537–1544. doi:10.1007/s00381-012-1809-6
48.
AmirLRBeckingAGJovanovicAPerdijkFBEvertsVBronckersAL. Formation of new bone during vertical distraction osteogenesis of the human mandible is related to the presence of blood vessels. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17(4):410–416. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01258.x
49.
LoboaEGFangTDWarrenSM, et al.Mechanobiology of mandibular distraction osteogenesis: experimental analyses with a rat model. Bone. 2004;34(2):336–343. doi:10.1016/j.bone.2003.10.012
50.
AgarwalR. Unfavourable results with distraction in craniofacial skeleton. Indian J Plast Surg.2013;46(02):194–203. doi:10.4103/0970-0358.118594
51.
MaheshwariSVermaSKTariqMPrabhatKCKumarS. Biomechanics and orthodontic treatment protocol in maxillofacial distraction osteogenesis. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2011;2(2):120–128. doi:10.4103/0975-5950.94464
52.
SamchukovMLCopeJBCherkashinAM. The effect of sagittal orientation of the distractor on the biomechanics of mandibular lengthening. J Oral Maxillofac Surg.1999;57(10):1214–1221. doi:10.1016/s0278-2391(99)90490-1
ResnickCM. Precise osteotomies for mandibular distraction in infants with Robin sequence using virtual surgical planning. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;47(1):35–43. doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2017.07.020
55.
RamanathanMKirubaGAChristabelAParameswaranAKapoorSSailerHF. Distraction osteogenesis versus orthognathic surgery: demystifying differences in concepts, techniques and outcomes. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2020;19(4):477–489. doi:10.1007/s12663-020-01414-y
56.
AndradeNGandhewarTKalraR. Development and evolution of distraction devices: use of indigenous appliances for distraction osteogenesis-an overview. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2011;1(1):58–65. doi:10.4103/2231-0746.83159
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
