Aim of the study was to get more insight into the opinion of European surgeons and orthodontists on the use of distraction osteogenesis (DO) for patients with different diagnoses and treatment protocols. A web based survey was set up, showing records of four patients with different conditions: hemifacial microsomia (case 1), bilateral mandibular deficiency (case 2), cleft lip and palate (case 3) and Crouzon syndrome (case 4). Respondents from 181 Eurocleft centres were asked to fill out a questionnaire for each patient. Most of the respondents considered case 1 (80\%), case 3 (81\%) and case 4 (86\%) suitable for DO, while only 31\% were considering case 2 for DO. There was lack of consensus among the respondents about many aspects of DO. Out of six different treatment parameters, an acceptable degree of agreement was only seen in two: a latency period of 3-7 days and a distraction rate of 1mm per day. Furthermore, there was noticeable disagreement on the ideal age for treatment, surgical technique, distraction device, and retention period. Our results showed that there is a wide variety in treatment approaches for craniofacial anomalies in Europe. There is disagreement on essential steps in the distraction procedures.
Current practice of distraction osteogenesis for craniofacial anomalies in Europe: a web based survey.
2010
Abstract
Aim of the study was to get more insight into the opinion of European surgeons and orthodontists on the use of distraction osteogenesis (DO) for patients with different diagnoses and treatment protocols. A web based survey was set up, showing records of four patients with different conditions: hemifacial microsomia (case 1), bilateral mandibular deficiency (case 2), cleft lip and palate (case 3) and Crouzon syndrome (case 4). Respondents from 181 Eurocleft centres were asked to fill out a questionnaire for each patient. Most of the respondents considered case 1 (80\%), case 3 (81\%) and case 4 (86\%) suitable for DO, while only 31\% were considering case 2 for DO. There was lack of consensus among the respondents about many aspects of DO. Out of six different treatment parameters, an acceptable degree of agreement was only seen in two: a latency period of 3-7 days and a distraction rate of 1mm per day. Furthermore, there was noticeable disagreement on the ideal age for treatment, surgical technique, distraction device, and retention period. Our results showed that there is a wide variety in treatment approaches for craniofacial anomalies in Europe. There is disagreement on essential steps in the distraction procedures.I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
