Unilateral versus bilateral correction of unicoronal synostosis:An analysis of long-term results

<p>Introduction: Hollowing of the temporal region is a common problem after cranioplasty for unicoronal synostosis. In this study, first, the development of temporal hollowing pre- and postoperatively is evaluated. Second, the origin of temporal hollowing is investigated by comparing two operative techniques. Ultimately, the relation between timing of surgery and the development of hollowing is investigated.</p><p>Methods: From 1979 to 2010, 194 patients with unicoronal synostosis were operated at our center. Patients were treated with a unilateral or bilateral correction of the supraorbital rim. A total of 48 patients qualified for the present study. Mean age at follow-up was 7.5 years. Cephalic landmarks were identified on radiographs prior to and after surgery to determine the growth of the forehead. For visual analysis, two independent observers evaluated normal photographs for the presence and severity of temporal hollowing.</p><p>Results: Preoperative osseous asymmetry improved significantly after surgery. A total of 21 patients show an increase of temporal hollowing on photographs after surgery (46%). In 35 out of 48 patients, postoperative temporal hollowing was noted (73%). Bilaterally treated patients showed more severe temporal hollowing compared to unilaterally treated patients, though not significantly (23% vs. 6%, p = 0.229). Timing of surgery (before or after the age of 1 year) did not influence the occurrence of severe temporal hollowing.</p><p>Conclusions: Fronto-supraorbital advancement was unable to achieve normal growth in the temporal region in a large proportion of patients, although more symmetrywas achieved. The operative technique itself did not seem to influence the occurrence of temporal hollowing, nor did the timing of surgery. (C) 2013 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</p>

Validation of a simple method for measuring cranial deformities (Plagiocephalometry)

Craniofacial measuring is essential for diagnosis or evaluation of growth and therapies. Skull deformities in children are mainly caused by craniosynostosis or by external pressure in positional skull deformations. Traditional anthropometry does not sufficiently analyze craniofacial shape. In computed tomography (CT) scanning, radiation loads are considerable. Both CT and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning require anaesthesia in children for accurate imaging, due to their long acquisition time. This makes CT and MRI unsuitable for long term follow-up of pediatric patients unless there is a compelling reason. Other non-invasive three-dimensional (31)) surface scanners still have limited practical use. Van Vlimmeren et al(6) presented plagiocephalometry (PCM) as a simple and versatile instrument to quantify skull deformities with high intrarater and interrater reliability, but no comparison was made with the actual skull shape. At the Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Sophia Children's Hospital PCM was compared to 3D-CT scanning in 21 children with craniosynostosis early in life. The PCM ring proved to fit closely to the skin with mean differences less than 1 mm (P 0.05). Finally, no significant differences are shown between measurements on the skull (CT-scan) and PCM ring off the head (P > 0.05). This study proves that PCM is a reliable method for analysis of skull deformities. The measurements are in agreement with 3D-CT scanning as golden standard. Although only 2-dimensional measurements are performed by PCM, the combination of simplicity, reliability, and validity make it a promising tool for daily practice

Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Treatment of Patients with Cleft Lip, Alveolus, and Palate: An Executive Summary.

Significant treatment variation exists in the Netherlands between teams treating patients with cleft lip, alveolus, and/or palate, resulting in a confusing and undesirable situation for patients, parents, and practitioners. Therefore, to optimize cleft care, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) were developed. The aim of this report is to describe CPG development, share the main recommendations, and indicate knowledge gaps regarding cleft care. Together with patients and parents, a multidisciplinary working group of representatives from all relevant disciplines assisted by two experienced epidemiologists identified the topics to be addressed in the CPGs. Searching the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases identified 5157 articles, 60 of which remained after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria. We rated the quality of the evidence from moderate to very low. The working group formulated 71 recommendations regarding genetic testing, feeding, lip and palate closure, hearing, hypernasality, bone grafting, orthodontics, psychosocial guidance, dentistry, osteotomy versus distraction, and rhinoplasty. The final CPGs were obtained after review by all stakeholders and allow cleft teams to base their treatment on current knowledge. With high-quality evidence lacking, the need for additional high-quality studies has become apparent

Explant vs Redo-TAVR After Transcatheter Valve Failure: Mid-Term Outcomes From the EXPLANTORREDO-TAVR International Registry

Background: Valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) failure has not been studied in detail. Objectives: The authors sought to determine outcomes of TAVR surgical explantation (TAVR-explant) vs redo-TAVR because they are largely unknown. Methods: From May 2009 to February 2022, 396 patients in the international EXPLANTORREDO-TAVR registry underwent TAVR-explant (181, 46.4%) or redo-TAVR (215, 54.3%) for transcatheter heart valve (THV) failure during a separate admission from the initial TAVR. Outcomes were reported at 30 days and 1 year. Results: The incidence of reintervention after THV failure was 0.59% with increasing volume during the study period. Median time from index-TAVR to reintervention was shorter in TAVR-explant vs redo-TAVR (17.6 months [IQR: 5.0-40.7 months] vs 45.7 months [IQR: 10.6-75.6 months]; P < 0.001], respectively. TAVR-explant had more prosthesis–patient mismatch (17.1% vs 0.5%; P < 0.001) as the indication for reintervention, whereas redo-TAVR had more structural valve degeneration (63.7% vs 51.9%; P = 0.023), with a similar incidence of ≥moderate paravalvular leak between groups (28.7% vs 32.8% in redo-TAVR; P = 0.44). There was a similar proportion of balloon-expandable THV failures (39.8% TAVR-explant vs 40.5% redo-TAVR; P = 0.92). Median follow-up was 11.3 (IQR: 1.6-27.1 months) after reintervention. Compared with redo-TAVR, TAVR-explant had higher mortality at 30 days (13.6% vs 3.4%; P < 0.001) and 1 year (32.4% vs 15.4%; P = 0.001), with similar stroke rates between groups. On landmark analysis, mortality was similar between groups after 30 days (P = 0.91). Conclusions: In this first report of the EXPLANTORREDO-TAVR global registry, TAVR-explant had a shorter median time to reintervention, with less structural valve degeneration, more prosthesis–patient mismatch, and similar paravalvular leak rates compared with redo-TAVR. TAVR-explant had higher mortality at 30 days and 1 year, but similar rates on landmark analysis after 30 days