I'm perfect

Rede, in verkorte vorm uitgesproken ter gelegenheid van het aanvaarden van het ambt van bijzonder hoogleraar met als leeropdracht Plastische Chirurgie, in het bijzonder Craniofaciale Afwijkingen aan het Erasmus MC, Faculteit van de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterda

Craniosynostosis: clinical and fundamental aspects

Prior to the discovery of the genetic background of craniosynostosis, its classification was purely based on clinical features. This classification system did however have its pitfalls which became more obvious after comparing it with the detected genetic mutations. Because this classification has been the basis for clinical practice for years and still is applied world wide, this chapter will begin by giving a historical and clinical view on craniosynostosis before discussing the genetic aspects

Health-related problems and quality of life in patients with syndromic and complex craniosynostosis

Purpose: We conducted this study to gauge the health-related problems, quality of life and the performance of the Health Utility Index Mark 3 (HUI-3) in patients with syndromic and complex craniosynostosis. Patients with syndromic and complex craniosynostosis have various physical and mental problems. More insight on these problems, per syndrome, could provide guidance to improve patient treatment and follow-up. Methods: A cross-sectional, comparative study on 131 patients and their parents was performed. Health-related quality of life was measured with the HUI-3 and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). All data were compared to a normative Dutch population. Vision, hearing and intelligence were objectively measured. Results: The HUI-3 and the VAS were significant lower compared to the normative Dutch population. All syndromes have a high prevalence of vision and speech problems. Cognitive problems were mainly reported in patients with Apert, Crouzon and Muenke syndrome. Ambulation and dexterity problems were seen in Apert, Crouzon, Saethre-Chotzen and complex craniosynostosis. Only patients with Apert syndrome scored significantly worse on pain. The HUI-3 had a medium to strong correlation with the objectively measured outcomes. Conclusions: The overall quality of life is lower in patients with syndromic and complex craniosynostosis. To improve quality of life, more attention is needed for problems with vision and speech

Assessing nonacceptance of the facial appearance in adult patients after complete treatment of their rare facial cleft

Background Treatment of patients with severe congenital facial disfigurements is aimed at restoring an aesthetic and functional balance. Besides an adequate level of satisfaction, an individual's acceptance of facial appearance is important to achieve because nonacceptance is thought to lead to daily psychological struggles. This study objectified the prevalence of nonacceptance among adult patients treated for their severe facial clefts, evaluated risk factors, and developed a screening tool. Methods The study included 59 adults with completed treatment for their severe facial cleft. All the patients underwent a semistructured in-depth interview and filled out the Body Cathexis Scale. Results Nonacceptance of facial appearance was experienced by 44 % of the patients. Of the nonaccepting patients, 72 % experienced difficulties in everyday activities related to their appearance versus 35 % of the accepting patients. Acceptance did not correlate with objective severity or bullying in the past. Risk factors for nonacceptance were high self-perceived visibility, a troublesome puberty period, and an emotion-focused coping strategy. Also, the presence of functional problems was shown to be highly associated. Conclusions The objective severity of the residual deformity did not correlate with the patients' acceptance of their facial appearance, but the self-perceived visibility did correlate. The process of nonacceptance resembles the process seen in patients with body dysmorphic disorders. Surgical treatment is no guarantee for an improvement in acceptance and is therefore discouraged for patients who match the risk factors for nonacceptance unless it solves a functional problem. The authors therefore recommend screening patients for nonacceptance and considering psychological treatment before surgery is performed. Level of Evidence III This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors at www.springer.com/00266

Eye and Orbital Anatomy in Metopic Synostosis

Background: Metopic synostosis patients have a high prevalence of orthoptic anomalies, including hyperopia, astigmatism, and amblyopia. We hypothesized altered orbital anatomy contributes to suboptimal visual outcomes by adversely affecting eye anatomy and growth from early life onward. Therefore, we aimed to investigate eye and orbital anatomy in metopic synostosis. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study in nonsyndromic metopic synostosis patients (n = 134, median age 0.43 years [IQR 0.45]) with nonsyndromic sagittal synostosis patients (n = 134, median age 0.27 years [IQR 0.23]) as controls. Primary analyses focused on eye dimensions (axial length, width, and globe height) and orbital dimensions, correcting for sex and age. Measurements were obtained from preoperative computed tomography scans. Results: Axial length and width in metopic synostosis patients did not differ from sagittal synostosis patients, but globe height was significantly smaller (P = 0.0002). Lateral wall interorbital length, lateral orbital wall length, anterior medial interorbital length, and maximal medial interorbital length were significantly smaller, and anterior vertical orbital height and maximal vertical orbital height were significantly larger (P &lt; 0.001). The central orbital axis and interorbital angle were significantly narrower, and medial-to-lateral orbital wall angle was wider (P &lt; 0.001). Conclusions: Metopic synostosis patients have more shallow, wider, and higher orbits. Eye dimensions are similar in sagittal synostosis patients, although globe height was smaller. Altered orbital and eye dimensions in metopic synostosis probably have a causal relation with an unknown order of development. How these dimensions relate to future orthoptic anomalies (eg, refractive error) needs further investigation.</p