Article

Minimally invasive orthognathic surgery.

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, USA.
Facial Plastic Surgery (Impact Factor: 0.92). 03/2009; 25(1):49-62. DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1112232
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Minimally invasive surgery is defined as the discipline in which operative procedures are performed in novel ways to diminish the sequelae of standard surgical dissections. The goals of minimally invasive surgery are to reduce tissue trauma and to minimize bleeding, edema, and injury, thereby improving the rate and quality of healing. In orthognathic surgery, there are two minimally invasive techniques that can be used separately or in combination: (1) endoscopic exposure and (2) distraction osteogenesis. This article describes the historical developments of the fields of orthognathic surgery and minimally invasive surgery, as well as the integration of the two disciplines. Indications, techniques, and the most current outcome data for specific minimally invasive orthognathic surgical procedures are presented.

1 Bookmark
 · 
115 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this project was to test a surgical navigation tool designed to help execute a surgical treatment plan. It consists of an electromagnetically tracked pencil that is used to mark bone intraoperatively. The device was tested on a precision block, an ex vivo pig mandible and during performance of six endoscopic vertical ramus osteotomies on pig cadavers. The difference between actual pencil position and that displayed by the computer was measured three times each at ten 2mm holes on the block (n=30 observations) and on the ex vivo mandible (n=11 measurements). Errors between planned and actual osteotomy locations for the cadaver procedures were measured. The mean distance between known and displayed locations was 1.55 ± 0.72 mm on the precision block and 2.10 ± 0.88 mm on the pig mandible. The error measured marking the same point on the block multiple (n=5) times was 0.58 ± 0.37 mm. The mean error on the simulated osteotomies was 2.35 ± 1.35 mm. Osteomark was simple to use and permitted localisation of holes and osteotomies with acceptable accuracy. In the future, the device and algorithms will be revised to further decrease error and the system will be tested on live animals.
    International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 11/2011; 41(2):265-70. · 1.52 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate the outcomes of endoscopic vertical ramus osteotomy (EVRO) with rigid fixation for the treatment of mandibular prognathism or asymmetry. Inclusion criteria were age >15 years, adequate clinical and radiographic documentation, and minimum postoperative follow-up of 3 years. Exclusion criteria were refusal to consent, rheumatoid arthritis, steroid use, and smoking. Demographic data, pre-operative (T0), immediate postoperative (T1), and latest follow-up (T2) clinical examinations and cephalometric analysis, procedure data, complications, and length of hospital stay (LOS) were documented. Ten fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Diagnoses included mandibular hyperplasia (n=5), stable condylar hyperplasia (n=4), and mandibular asymmetry secondary to condylar resorption (n=1). In total, 17 EVROs were performed. The mean operative time was 33min per side. Mean mandibular setback was 4.7mm. Mean LOS was 1.9 days. Latest follow-up ranged from 3 to 5 years. Skeletal stability was confirmed in nine patients. One patient exhibited recurrence of mandibular prognathism at 5 years due to late growth. No VII nerve deficits were encountered. Inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) paresthesia was noted in four patients, which resolved postoperatively. EVRO was fast and resulted in minimal blood loss, quick recovery, and skeletal stability.
    International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 11/2013; · 1.52 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: James Sidman, MD, and Sherard A. Tatum, MD, address the following questions for discussion and debate. Is neonatal distraction osteogenesis (DO) better than lip-tongue adhesion or tracheotomy for micrognathic airway compromise? What role does DO have in adult orthognathic surgery situations? In monobloc and Le Fort III procedures, are internal or external devices preferable? What role does DO play in craniofacial microsomia? Is endoscopic DO better than open procedures for synostosis management? How has your technique changed or evolved over the past 5 years and what has doing this technique taught you?
    Facial plastic surgery clinics of North America 02/2014; 22(1):139-46.