Minimally invasive orthognathic surgery.
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.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The patient's appearance can be dramatically enhanced as a result of orthognathic surgery. However, esthetic contouring of the mandibular body portion is often overlooked in the surgery. Restoring a more beautiful jaw line is important and directly affects surgical results. From December 2010 to February 2012, we performed mandibular body contouring for the slimming of the third lower part of the face in 37 patients who had undergone either 1-jaw surgery or 2-jaw surgery. The third lower part of the facial contour was improved in all the patients after at least 3 months follow-up. Mandibular body contouring is a simple method that can be additionally used for the slimming of the third lower part of the face in patients who require orthognathic surgeries. It makes the lower face look more attractive from both the anterior and lateral perspectives.01/2013; 35(5). DOI:10.14402/jkamprs.2013.35.5.325
Article: Distraction osteogenesis.[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. DOI:10.1016/j.fsc.2013.09.003
[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; DOI:10.1016/j.ijom.2013.09.012 · 1.52 Impact Factor