| Patient Education |
|
Click here for patient education.
|
|
You are in: eMedicine Specialties >
Otolaryngology and Facial Plastic Surgery > CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY
Distraction Osteogenesis of the Maxilla
Article Last Updated: Nov 28, 2006
AUTHOR AND EDITOR INFORMATION
Section 1 of 11  
Author: Anil R Shah, MD, Assistant Clinical Professor and Instructor, Division of Facial Plastic Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, New York University Medical Center
Anil R Shah is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American Academy of Otolaryngic Allergy, American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, and Triological Society
Coauthor(s):
Daniel G Danahey, MD, PhD, Consulting Staff, Michiana Eye Center and Facial Plastic Surgery, South Bend, Indiana;
Cherie Ryoo, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine
Editors: Mimi S Kokoska, MD, Associate Professor, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences; Chief, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System; Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD, Senior Pharmacy Editor, eMedicine; Robert M Kellman, MD, Professor and Chair, Department of Otolaryngology and Communication Sciences, State University of New York Upstate Medical University; Christopher L Slack, MD, Otolaryngology-Facial Plastic Surgery, Private Practice, Associated Coastal ENT; Medical Director, Treasure Coast Sleep Disorders; Arlen D Meyers, MD, MBA, Professor, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine
Author and Editor Disclosure
Synonyms and related keywords:
distraction osteogenesis of the maxilla, bone deformities, reconstructive surgery, Crouzon syndrome, Crouzon's syndrome, Pfeiffer syndrome, Pfeiffer's syndrome, Apert syndrome, Apert's syndrome, maxillary distraction, midface distraction, bony distraction
Distraction osteogenesis is a surgical technique for reconstruction of bony deformities. Increased amounts of both bone and soft tissue are created as a result of the gradual displacement of surgically created bony fractures. Because distraction techniques generate new bone, the morbidity of harvesting bone from other sites is obviated.
In terms of techniques, traditional advancement of the mid face with osteotomies and harvesting of bone grafts are associated with high rates of midface regression and morbidity. Distraction in the mid face decreases intraoperative morbidity and rates of postoperative midface regression. Both of these factors have led to an increase in the popularity of midface distraction, demonstrated in a survey of craniofacial surgeons, who reported that the mid face was the site of distraction in 28% of their cases.
History of the Procedure
Osteogenic distraction is the result of the evolution of techniques for bone fixation, skeletal traction, and osteotomy. Osteogenic distraction was first used in orthopedics to lengthen bones after planned osteotomies. However, the complication rate remained high and the technique was not understood until Gavriel Ilizarov, a Russian orthopedic surgeon, performed detailed studies in 1952. Working in a rural clinic in Siberia, Ilizarov did not have the requisite equipment for surgeons used at that time. Therefore, he performed studies by using his own equipment and procedures, which proved to be more effective than contemporary procedures, as evidenced by modern day use of his methods.
Distraction of the maxilla was first performed by expanding the midpalatal suture in monkeys in 1965. The first human application of maxillary distraction in craniofacial surgery was a mandible distraction in 1989. Case reports of its application in maxillary distraction were published in 1992.
Pathophysiology
The principle of distraction osteogenesis is based on new bone formation that develops when tension forces are applied. This new bone formation is a result of membranous ossification.
The viability of bone cells (osteocytes and osteoblasts) is crucial in distraction osteogenesis. Bone viability can be enhanced by limiting damage to the cortex by making distinct cuts. Bone viability can also be enhanced by preserving the blood supply to the bone, which is necessary for its growth, by leaving adequate soft tissue coverage. Endothelial cells may stimulate angiogenesis and play an important role as well.
Distraction histogenesis is a term that describes the gradual increase in soft tissue volume in response to the stress forces applied with bony distraction. Traditional midface techniques provide immediate bony correction but do not allow for compensatory growth of the soft tissues. As a result of scarring and memory, the soft tissue often contracts to its preoperative state. This is thought to be the main reason for the high rate of relapse of midface insufficiency after the use of traditional techniques. In contrast, distraction techniques create a gradual increase in the amount of soft tissue by preventing its contraction.
Indications for distraction osteogenesis of the maxilla are craniofacial anomalies, facial clefts, severe sleep apnea, hemifacial microsomia, a deficient alveolar ridge, and complex trauma.
Craniofacial anomalies account for most indications for maxillary distraction. Distraction may improve aesthetic contouring of the face, resolve sleep apnea, and improve orthognathics. Distraction can be applied to a wide variety of anomalies with maxillary deficiency; Crouzon syndrome and Pfeiffer syndrome account for most of the reported cases. Advancement of the lower maxilla, as in a Le Fort I osteotomy, or complete midfacial advancement, as in a Le Fort III procedure, can be accomplished. Distraction cannot only achieve the aesthetic goals of realignment but also apnea resolves, obviating tracheostomy.
Patients with facial clefting often have maxillary hypoplasia. Even after cleft repair and orthodontic treatment, severe maxillary deficiency may persist. These patients traditionally undergo repair with Le Fort I osteotomy advancement with internal fixation. This approach often fails because of palatal scarring, soft tissue memory, and scar formation. External distraction leads to slow expansion of the surrounding tissues, allowing the body to accommodate the new position of the maxilla. Krimmel et al found that external distraction is superior to traditional techniques in patients who have facial clefting with maxillary hypoplasia (Krimmel, 2001).
Sleep apnea in select adults with a deficiency in their upper airway dimension may be an indication for distraction.
Hemifacial microsomia may respond to a combination of maxillomandibular distraction. Satoh et al found that distraction osteogenesis is a safe and effective method for reducing the use of orthodontic appliances to 7-14 years (Satoh, 2002).
A deficient alveolar ridge is another indication for maxillary distraction. A deficiency of the alveolar ridge may be the result of circumstances, such as traumatic avulsion of mandibular incisor teeth or a congenital deformity. Expansion of the alveolar housing creates a site for the placement of a dental implant. This may improve ridge esthetics for a pontic, or replacement, artificial tooth or teeth that are mounted on a fixed or removable dental appliance, and it may expand the alveolus to allow for orthodontic tooth movement.
Distraction may also be indicated in cases of complex, high-impact midface fractures, especially for the delayed repair of bony fractures of the mid face.
As long as the bone where the distraction device is placed is adequate, the procedure has few contraindications. Young patients must be selected carefully because of their fragile bones and because the amount of bone available for device placement may be inadequate. In infants, numerous studies have demonstrated successful results with the careful selection of infants, with no untoward effects. The surgeon must preoperatively confirm that the strength of the transport and anchorage segments is adequate to withstand forces of mobilization and transport.
Skeletal deformities resulting from bone disease are not a contraindication, as long as enough bone for distraction is available.
Last, the patient's participation is as important as the procedure itself. A noncompliant patient can cause any distraction procedure to fail.
Imaging Studies
- Patients undergoing distraction require a photographic assessment throughout the distraction to assess their progress.
- Necessary radiographic studies include cephalography, mandibular panoramic (Panorex) imaging, and CT.
- Not all surgeons recommend 3-dimensional reconstructive scanning.
- Several important relationships must be considered before distraction of the mid face is preformed (see Image 1).
- Quantifying the degree of exorbitism is especially important in syndromic patients.
- Important relationships include the maxillary plane and the occlusal plane angle.
- Assessing the anteroposterior deficiency in the mid face in relation to the remaining facial structures is also important.
Preoperative details
- Devices available for distraction can be subdivided into internal and external devices (see Image 2).
- Internal devices are applied under soft tissue cover, with a small rod for distraction protruding through the skin. They are best used for larger bones and require a second stage for their removal. The distractors are placed with anchoring plates on each side of the osteotomy. External devices are located outside the skin, and the bone is held with transcutaneous pins.
- External devices can be applied to smaller bones and removed without a second stage. A skull-anchored distractor, which attaches to a tooth-borne appliance called the rigid external distraction system, can advance the mid face in many directions.
Intraoperative details
- Procedure
- Patients require general anesthesia before the distraction device is inserted. Lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 is injected to ensure hemostasis.
- The maxilla can be exposed by using various methods. Usually a Caldwell-Luc exposure is adequate.
- To ensure an adequate amount of mucosa for closure, attention is paid to making the incision superiorly, at least 1 cm above the gum line. After the infraorbital nerve is identified and the skin flap is adequately raised, the osteotomies can be made in the appropriate position.
- In patients with maxillary retrusion and severe exorbitism, a Le Fort III osteotomy may be necessary. In patients with severe sleep apnea, a Le Fort I osteotomy is used to advance the maxilla. In patients with a complex facial fracture, no osteotomy may be necessary if the bone is already mobilized.
- The distraction device is inserted before the osteotomies are completed. A test with application of the distraction device is necessary to ensure that they are functioning.
- Combined mandible and maxillary distraction
- In cases in which the mandible and maxilla are to be concomitantly distracted, attention to detail is crucial.
- When the surgeon performs the mandible corticotomy, a maxillary osteotomy can be performed as well.
- The jaws can be wired into intermaxillary fixation, or elastics can be placed during the latency period.
- Endoscopic-assisted osteotomies: An endoscopic technique may decrease morbidity of midface distraction.
Postoperative details
- Immediate postoperative period
- After the procedure, all patients must be observed overnight in a monitored hospital bed.
- The postoperative antibiotic course varies from 7-10 days.
- Pain should subside during the first week.
- Latency period
- The latency period is the time delayed before the distraction phase. This period varies widely among surgeons, although most recommend about 4-7 days.
- If the latency period is too long, the patient may have premature fusion of the bones. Children are especially susceptible to premature fusion because of their higher metabolic rates.
- A short latency period may predispose to fibrous union of the 2 distracted bones, inadequate osteogenesis, and decreased callous volume. Early distraction is theorized to disrupt new capillary formation by not allowing the capillaries to mature enough to withstand the distraction forces.
- Several studies have demonstrated no differences in distraction between immediate distraction and latencies of 1, 2, or 3 weeks. The differences may be related to the increased blood supply in the facial skeleton compared with that in the extremities. The craniofacial skeleton is largely formed by intramembranous ossification versus endochondral ossification in the extremities.
- Distraction course
- The distraction period varies. According to some of Ilazarov's studies in long bones, the bone should ideally be continually distracted. Patients with a fractionated distraction schedule have less soft tissue injury and increased preservation of blood supply than those distracted once daily. However, most surgeons apply distraction once or twice a day because of convenience.
- The recommended distraction is about 1 mm a day. Distraction that is too aggressive can lead to fibrous union. Distraction that is too slow can lead to early fusion of the bones.
- Consolidation period
- The consolidation period is the period of bone remodeling. It should be about twice the length of the distraction phase. The device remains in place, now as a fixation device. Consolidation generally takes approximately 10 weeks to develop.
- The consolidation phase differs in the face compared with long bones in terms of the functional load that exists in this state, differences in bone healing throughout the facial skeleton, and the complex morphology of the distraction chamber.
- Decreased stability of bone segments may lead to the formation of cartilage, then to delayed bony formation or possibly fibrous union. On the contrary, stability of the 2 bone segments directly leads to bony remodeling after 10 weeks of stabilization.
Follow-up
See above Postoperative details section regarding bone stabilization and consolidation. After all of the hardware is removed, follow-up is necessary to ascertain how the patient's distracted area appears in the context of the normal growth of the surrounding tissue. If the patient underwent distraction because of airway compromise, close follow-up with a pediatric otolaryngologist is warranted until the patient's breathing problems resolve.
In one review, 3278 cases were described in surveys sent out to craniofacial surgeons. The results revealed that procedures performed by experienced surgeons resulted in fewer complications than procedures performed by inexperienced surgeons.
Reported complications include the following:
- Velopharyngeal insufficiency
- Guyette et al examined changes in speech after maxillary distraction osteogenesis. Although 16.7% of patients had increased hypernasality, 67% had an improvement in overall articulation at 1-year follow-up. The authors concluded that the risk of velopharyngeal insufficiency is similar to that of traditional Le Fort I advancement (Guyette, 2001).
- Harada examined 6 patients with a facial cleft and its effect on velopharyngeal function. They found no change in the hypernasality rating of patients who underwent distraction of less than 15 mm (Harada, 2002).
- Device failure
- Premature fusion of the segments undergoing distraction
- Noncompliance
- Device extrusion
- Wound infection
- Relapse of maxilla in patients
- Possible interference of tooth buds
- Fracture of transport segment
- Fracture of anchorage segment
- Undesirable transport vector
Overall, if the patient can tolerate the distractor, his or her prognosis is good, and a long-lasting result can be expected. However, Krimmel and associates examined cephalometrics postdistraction in patients aged 12-31 years. They found that distraction was stable at 1 year postprocedure, but further growth in the adolescent facies lead to a decrease in SNA and ANB with a subsequent increase in facial concavity. Similar results were seen by Harada in children with maxillary external distraction.
Compared with traditional midface advancement with osteotomies and harvesting of bone grafts, distraction in the mid face has decreased intraoperative morbidity and postoperative midface regression. Traditional methods have been associated with a number of complications, including a skeletal relapse rate of 50-60%. Wong and Padwa reported no relapse in 5 patients after 2 years (Wong, 2002). A study in adult sheep showed minimal relapse in the 3-month postoperative period and none in the 6- to 12-month postoperative periods. The amount of facial growth at other areas in children and adolescents may lead to residual facial concavities as the patients facial structure matures. Distraction is a relatively minor surgical procedure compared with traditional methods, and it can preserve the integrity of the nerves and the vascular supply.
A recent study by Ianetti et al compared traditional Le Fort III osteotomies with distraction osteogenesis. Based on clinical examination and cephalometrics, patients who underwent distraction osteogenesis had farther projection, and distraction osteogenesis was deemed the method of choice for severe midface retrusion.
Future approaches to distraction osteogenesis of the maxilla may involve the following devices or techniques: implantable devices made of bioresorbable materials, multivectorial internal devices, advancement of the mid face without osteotomies (This was performed in an animal study, in which it prevented the morbidity and postoperative sequelae induced with an osteotomy.), minimally invasive placement by means of endoscopic techniques, computer-assisted distraction with automated or motorized devices (to improve and quicken distraction techniques), and flexible distraction rods that allow for concurrent occlusal adaptation.
| Media file 1:
Frontal view of a patient with Apert syndrome. Note the classic stigmata of exophthalmos, hypoplastic maxilla, saddle-nose deformity, and craniofacial dysostosis. |
 |  View Full Size Image | |
Media type: Photo
|
| Media file 2:
Lateral view of a patient with Apert syndrome. Note the orbital exorbitism and maxillary deficiency. |
 | View Full Size Image | |
Media type: Photo
|
| Media file 3:
Lateral postoperative view of a patient with Apert syndrome and an external distractor in place. Note the improvement in the midface projection. |
 | View Full Size Image | |
Media type: Photo
|
| Media file 4:
Lateral preoperative view of a patient with Crouzon syndrome. Note the obvious characteristics of mandibular prognathism, small maxilla, exophthalmos, and parrot-beaked nose. |
 | View Full Size Image | |
Media type: Photo
|
| Media file 5:
Lateral preoperative cephalogram demonstrates midface regression despite use of the traditional approach of osteotomy and immediate advancement. |
 | View Full Size Image | |
Media type: Photo
|
| Media file 6:
Lateral postoperative view of a patient with Crouzon syndrome and an external distractor in place. Note advancement of the maxilla and correction of mandibular prognathism. |
 | View Full Size Image | |
Media type: Photo
|
| Media file 7:
Lateral view demonstrates grossly evident maxillary hypoplasia in a patient with Pfeiffer syndrome. |
 | View Full Size Image | |
Media type: Photo
|
| Media file 8:
Frontal view of a patient with Pfeiffer syndrome and maxillary retrusion severe enough to require a tracheotomy. |
 | View Full Size Image | |
Media type: Photo
|
| Media file 9:
Lateral postoperative view of a patient with Pfeiffer syndrome and an internal distractor. Note evidence of midface improvement. Decannulation was performed several weeks later. |
 | View Full Size Image | |
Media type: Photo
|
| Media file 10:
Three-dimensional reconstructed CT scan demonstrates preoperative maxillary deficiency. |
 | View Full Size Image | |
Media type: CT
|
| Media file 11:
Three-dimensional reconstructed CT scan demonstrates preoperative maxillary deficiency. |
 | View Full Size Image | |
Media type: CT
|
| Media file 12:
Postoperative reconstructed 3-dimensional CT scan in the same patient as in Images 10-11 depicts improved skeletal balance with advancement of the mid face. |
 | View Full Size Image | |
Media type: CT
|
| Media file 13:
Postoperative reconstructed 3-dimensional CT scan in the same patient as in Images 10-12 depicts improved skeletal balance with advancement of the mid face. |
 | View Full Size Image | |
Media type: CT
|
- Cohen SR. Midface distraction. Semin Orthod. Mar 1999;5(1):52-8. [Medline].
- Fan H, Wang X, Lin Y, et al. [Application of distraction osteogenesis in severe maxillary hypoplasia secondary to cleft palate]. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. May 25 2002;82(10):699-702. [Medline].
- Ghysen D, Ozsarlak O, van den Hauwe L. Maxillo-facial trauma. JBR-BTR. Aug 2000;83(4):181-92. [Medline].
- Guyette TW, Polley JW, Figueroa A, Smith BE. Changes in speech following maxillary distraction osteogenesis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. May 2001;38(3):199-205. [Medline].
- Harada K, Baba Y, Ohyama K, Omura K. Soft tissue profile changes of the midface in patients with cleft lip and palate following maxillary distraction osteogenesis: a preliminary study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. Dec 2002;94(6):673-7. [Medline].
- Harada K, Ishii Y, Ishii M, et al. Effect of maxillary distraction osteogenesis on velopharyngeal function: a pilot study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. May 2002;93(5):538-43. [Medline].
- Harada K, Sato M, Omura K. Long-term skeletal and dental changes in patients with cleft lip and palate after maxillary distraction: a report of three cases treated with a rigid external distraction device. Cranio. Apr 2005;23(2):152-7. [Medline].
- Hierl T, Kloppel R, Hemprich A. Midfacial distraction osteogenesis without major osteotomies: a report on the first clinical application. Plast Reconstr Surg. Nov 2001;108(6):1667-72. [Medline].
- Iannetti G, Fadda T, Agrillo A. LeFort III advancement with and without osteogenesis distraction. J Craniofac Surg. May 2006;17(3):536-43. [Medline].
- Kessler P, Wiltfang J, Schultze-Mosgau S, et al. Distraction osteogenesis of the maxilla and midface using a subcutaneous device: report of four cases. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. Feb 2001;39(1):13-21. [Medline].
- Ko EW, Figueroa AA, Guyette TW, et al. Velopharyngeal changes after maxillary advancement in cleft patients with distraction osteogenesis using a rigid external distraction device: a 1-year cephalometric follow-up. J Craniofac Surg. Jul 1999;10(4):312-20; discussion 321-2. [Medline].
- Krimmel M, Cornelius CP, Roser M, et al. External distraction of the maxilla in patients with craniofacial dysplasia. J Craniofac Surg. Sep 2001;12(5):458-63. [Medline].
- Krimmel M, Cornelius CP, Bacher M, et al. Longitudinal cephalometric analysis after maxillary distraction osteogenesis. J Craniofac Surg. Jul 2005;16(4):683-8. [Medline].
- Li KK, Powell NB, Riley RW, Guilleminault C. Distraction osteogenesis in adult obstructive sleep apnea surgery: a preliminary report. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. Jan 2002;60(1):6-10. [Medline].
- Matsumoto K, Nakanishi H, Koizumi Y, et al. Segmental distraction of the midface in a patient with Crouzon syndrome. J Craniofac Surg. Mar 2002;13(2):273-8. [Medline].
- Meling TR, Tveten S, Due-Tonnessen BJ. Monobloc and midface distraction osteogenesis in pediatric patients with severe syndromal craniosynostosis. Pediatr Neurosurg. Aug 2000;33(2):89-94. [Medline].
- Morovic CG, Monasterio L. Distraction osteogenesis for obstructive apneas in patients with congenital craniofacial malformations. Plast Reconstr Surg. Jun 2000;105(7):2324-30. [Medline].
- Papageorge MB. Distraction osteogenesis for augmentation of the deficient alveolar ridge. J Mass Dent Soc. Spring 2002;51(1):24-30, 51. [Medline].
- Polley JW, Figueroa AA. Maxillary distraction osteogenesis with rigid external distraction. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. Mar 1999;7(1):15-28. [Medline].
- Rachmiel A, Jackson IT, Potparic Z. Midface advancement in sheep by gradual distraction: a 1-year follow-up study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. May 1995;53(5):525-9. [Medline].
- Satoh K, Suzuki T, Uemura T, Hosaka Y. Maxillo-mandibular distraction osteogenesis for hemifacial microsomia in children. Ann Plast Surg. Dec 2002;49(6):572-8; discussion 578-9. [Medline].
- Swennen G, Dempf R, Schliephake H. Cranio-facial distraction osteogenesis: a review of the literature. Part II: Experimental studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. Apr 2002;31(2):123-35. [Medline].
- Swennen G, Schliephake H, Dempf R, et al. Craniofacial distraction osteogenesis: a review of the literature: Part 1: clinical studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. Apr 2001;30(2):89-103. [Medline].
- Uemura T, Hayashi T, Satoh K, et al. A case of improved obstructive sleep apnea by distraction osteogenesis for midface hypoplasia of an infantile Crouzon''s syndrome. J Craniofac Surg. Jan 2001;12(1):73-7. [Medline].
- Wong GB, Padwa BL. LeFort I soft tissue distraction: a hybrid technique. J Craniofac Surg. Jul 2002;13(4):572-6. [Medline].
Distraction Osteogenesis of the Maxilla excerpt Article Last Updated: Nov 28, 2006
|
