Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jan-Jun;12(1):22-26.
doi: 10.4103/ams.ams_35_22. Epub 2022 Aug 16.

Rigid versus Resorbable Plate Fixation in Fronto-Orbital Advancement in Unicoronal Stenosis - A Retrospective Study

S M Balaji  1 , Preetha Balaji  1
Affiliations

Rigid versus Resorbable Plate Fixation in Fronto-Orbital Advancement in Unicoronal Stenosis - A Retrospective Study

S M Balaji et al. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2022 Jan-Jun.

Abstract

Introduction: Rigid plating fixation (RPF) and resorbable plating systems (RPS) advanced the field of reconstruction in craniomaxillofacial region. However, their performance in patients, particularly the effect on bone remodeling at site of hardware placement is not much documented. This manuscript aims to compare the performance of RPF and RPS in a cohort using a retrospective audit of case records.

Methods: Archival records were searched for patients who had undergone cranial metal-RPF or RPS or combination for the correction of craniofacial deformities following inclusion-exclusion criteria. From records, data of the quality and quantity of bone formed along the site of plate fixation as compared with the adjacent site, accommodating or facilitating brain growth, and persistence of bone deformity at the site of hardware placement were collected at the end of the follow-up period. A total of 128 sites from 18 individuals (6 with exclusive metal-RPF and 12 with RPS) mean age of 7.45 ± 7.28 (Median 4; IQR of 8.88;2.6-11.5) who underwent cranial bone remodeling surgery formed the study group.

Results: There was a statistically significant difference between the RPF and PRS system at the fronto-orbital suture (P = 0.002) and coronal suture (P = 0.036) with bone quality and quantity.

Discussion: The RPF system was rigid but had a set of issues, while RPS has advantages and limitations. The qualitative difference in between the two systems is different. Due to inherent dissimilarity, the two systems cannot be interchanged and due diligence has to be exercised while deciding on the system. More prospective studies are needed to validate the findings.

Keywords: Fronto-zygomatic sutures; resorbable plates; rigid plating fixation; sonic welding; supraorbital osteotomy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Dr. SM Balaji is associated as the Editor-in-Chief of this journal and this manuscript was subject to this journal’s standard review procedures, with this peer review handled independently of the Editor-in-Chief and their research group.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(a) Pre-operative view of a case of unicoronal synostosis with hypertelorism. (b) and (c) Preoperative 3D CT scan imaging. (d-g) The various sections show the images of the pre-operative planning for the calvarial segmental shift. (h-i) Intra-operative view showing rigid plate fixation (Titanium) at the frontozygomatic suture and at the upper orbital osteotomy site. (j-k) Postoperative 3DCT showing rigid plate fixation at the Frontozygomatic and supra-orbital area. (l) Postoperative view showing better aesthetic appearance
Figure 2
Figure 2
(a) Preoperative view of a case of Unicoronalstenosis. (b) and (c) Preoperative 3DCT scan showing synostosis at the coronal and sagittal suture. (d) and (e) 3D stereolithographic model for preoperative planning. (f) Intra operative picture shows RPF (blue arrow) at the Frontozygomatic region and RPS (Yellow arrow) at the fronto-orbital and coronal area. (g-h) Postoperative 3DCT scan showing plate fixation at the frontozygomatic and supraorbital region. (i) Postoperative view
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Lee JS, Yu JW. In:The History of Maxillofacial Surgery. Cham: Springer; 2022. Craniosynostosis surgery; pp. 367–90.
    1. Mulliken JB, Kaban LB, Evans CA, Strand RD, Murray JE. Facial skeletal changes following hypertelorbitism correction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1986;77:7–16. - PubMed
    1. Ayyala HS, Hoppe IC, Rathmann AM, Ciminello FS. Intracranial migration of hardware 16 years following craniosynostosis repair. Eplasty. 2018;18:e2. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Deveci M, Eski M, Gurses S, Yucesoy CA, Selmanpakoglu N, Akkas N. Biomechanical analysis of the rigid fixation of zygoma fractures:An experimental study. J Craniofac Surg. 2004;15:595–602. - PubMed
    1. Fearon JA. Rigid fixation of the calvaria in craniosynostosis without using “rigid”fixation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;111:27–38. - PubMed