Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Plast Surg 2013; 46(02): 194-203
DOI: 10.4103/0970-0358.118594
Original Article
Association of Plastic Surgeons of India

Unfavourable results with distraction in craniofacial skeleton

Rajiv Agarwal
Department of Plastic Surgery and Burns, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
07 October 2019 (online)

Also available at
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Distraction osteogenesis has revolutionised the management of craniofacial abnormalities. The technique however requires precise planning, patient selection, execution and follow-up to achieve consistent and positive results and to avoid unfavourable results. The unfavourable results with craniofacial distraction stem from many factors ranging from improper patient selection, planning and use of inappropriate distraction device and vector. The present study analyses the current standards and techniques of distraction and details in depth the various errors and complications that may occur due to this technique. The commonly observed complications of distraction have been detailed along with measures and suggestions to avoid them in clinical practice.

KEY WORDS

Complications - distraction osteogenesis - unfavourable results
 
  • 1 Snyder CC, Levine GA, Swanson HM, Browne EZ Jr. Mandibular lengthening by gradual distraction. Preliminary report. Plast Reconstr Surg 1973;51:506-8.
  • 2 McKibbin B. The biology of fracture healing in long bones. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1978;60-B: 150-62.
  • 3 Hulth A. Current concepts of fracture healing. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989;249:265-84.
  • 4 Postacchini F, Gumina S, Perugia D, De Martino C. Early fracture callus in the diaphysis of human long bones. Histologic and ultrastructural study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1995;310:218-28.
  • 5 Kharbanda OP, Darendeliler MA. Ortho-surgical management of skeletal malocclusions. In: Kharbanda OP, editor. Orthodontics. 2 nd ed. India: Elsevier; 2013. p. 645-82.
  • 6 Arnett GW, Bergman RT. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;103:299-312.
  • 7 Genecov D, Agarwal R, Genecov ED, Salyer K. Evolution of extraoral mandibular distraction: Case reports. In: Craniofacial Distraction Osteogenesis. Ch. 23. Missouri: Mosby Pub.; 2001. p. 230-5.
  • 8 Agarwal R, Agarwal S, Chandra R. Mandibular reconstruction using extraoral trifocal bone transport: Report of a case using a new device. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;70:1739-44.
  • 9 Agarwal R, Agarwal S. External system for stabilization and distraction of curved bony surfaces. Patentscope. Publication number WO2011121512, Application number PCT/IB2011/051287, 2011.
  • 10 Shevtsov VI, Cherkashin AM, Sklyar LV, Borodailevich RD. Complication forecast and prophylaxis external fixation treatment, Ilizarov method: Achievements and prospective. Abstract Book of the International Scientific Conference, Kurgan, Russia Kurgan All-Union Scientific Center "Restorative Traumatology and Orthopaedics"; 1993.
  • 11 Cherkashin AM, Samchukov ML. Potential mistakes and complications during distraction osteogenesis. In Samchukov ML, Cope JB, Cherkashin AM, editors. Craniofacial Distraction Osteogenesis. Ch. 68. New York: Mosby; 2001. p. 583-94.
  • 12 Marchac D, Arnaud E. Midface surgery from Tessier to distraction. Childs Nerv Syst 1999;15:681-94.
  • 13 Ilizarov GA. 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;238:249-81.
  • 14 Ilizarov GA. 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;239:263-85.
  • 15 Stanitski DF, Bullard M, Armstrong P, Stanitski CL. Results of femoral lengthening using the Ilizarov technique. J Pediatr Orthop 1995;15:224-31.
  • 16 Chin M, Toth BA. Distraction osteogenesis in maxillofacial surgery using internal devices: Review of five cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;54:45-53.
  • 17 Cope JB, Samchukov ML, Cherkashin AM, Wolford LM, Franco P. Biomechanics of mandibular distractor orientation: An animal model analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999;57:952-62.
  • 18 Paley D. Problems, obstacles, and complications of limb lengthening by the Ilizarov technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990;50:81-104.
  • 19 Kewitt GF, Van Sickels JE. Long-term effect of mandibular midline distraction osteogenesis on the status of the temporomandibular joint, teeth, periodontal structures, and neurosensory function. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999;57:1419-25.
  • 20 Gardner TN, Evans M, Simpson H, Kenwright J. Force-displacement behaviour of biological tissue during distraction osteogenesis. Med Eng Phys 1998;20:708-15.
  • 21 Harper RP, Bell WH, Hinton RJ, Browne R, Cherkashin AM, Samchukov ML. Reactive changes in the temporomandibular joint after mandibular midline osteodistraction. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997;35:20-5.
  • 22 Hussain SA. External frame distraction osteogenesis of the midface in the cleft patient. Indian J Plast Surg 2009;42 Suppl: S168-73.
  • 23 McCarthy JG, Stelnicki EJ, Grayson BH. Distraction osteogenesis of the mandible: A ten-year experience. Semin Orthod 1999;5:3-8.