Endoscopic-assisted versus open fronto-orbital distraction for unicoronal craniosynostosis: morphometric and technique considerations
- PMID: 39692920
- PMCID: PMC11655604
- DOI: 10.1007/s00381-024-06662-8
Endoscopic-assisted versus open fronto-orbital distraction for unicoronal craniosynostosis: morphometric and technique considerations
Abstract
Introduction: In an effort to maximize benefit and minimize morbidity when performing fronto-orbital distraction osteogenesis (FODO) for unilateral coronal synostosis (UCS), we have transitioned to an endoscopic-assisted approach ("endo-FODO"). This study compares photogrammetric outcomes of patients who underwent FODO via an endoscopic-assisted versus open approach.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients treated for UCS from 2013 to 2023. Photogrammetric outcomes at one to three years postoperatively were compared between patients who underwent endo-FODO and age- and sex-matched controls who underwent open FODO. Differences between pre- and postoperative periorbital symmetry ratios, canthal tilt symmetry, and orbital dystopia angle (ODA) were calculated.
Results: Twenty patients (ten per group) underwent surgery at a mean age of 6.1 ± 1.8 and 5.4 ± 1.1 months (p = 0.426) and were photographed at 1.6 ± 0.9 and 1.8 ± 0.9 years (p = 0.597) postoperatively in the endo-FODO and open FODO groups, respectively. Patients who underwent endo-FODO demonstrated significant improvements in margin-reflex distance 1 (MRD1) symmetry ratio (p = 0.004), palpebral height symmetry ratio (p = 0.004), canthal tilt symmetry (p = 0.020), and ODA (p = 0.009). Patients who underwent open FODO likewise demonstrated significant improvements in MRD1 symmetry ratio (p = 0.004), palpebral height symmetry ratio (p = 0.033), and ODA (p = 0.004). All postoperative measurements as well as degrees of improvement were similar between groups (p > 0.05).
Conclusions: Endo- and open FODO were associated with significant and comparable improvements in soft tissue periorbital symmetry and orbital dystopia at nearly two years postoperatively. While continued follow-up until cranial maturity is needed to assess the durability of aesthetic results, these data support a minimally invasive, endoscopic alternative to fronto-orbital distraction.
Keywords: Endoscopic; Fronto-orbital distraction osteogenesis; Minimally invasive; Unilateral coronal synostosis.
© 2024. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Competing interest: The authors declare no competing interests.
Figures





Similar articles
-
The Evolution of Unicoronal Synostosis Correction: Long-Term Aesthetics of Fronto-Orbital Distraction versus Advancement.Plast Reconstr Surg. 2025 Jul 1;156(1):105-116. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000011844. Epub 2024 Oct 28. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2025. PMID: 39465660
-
Long-term aesthetic and photogrammetric outcomes in non-syndromic unicoronal synostosis: comparison of fronto-orbital distraction osteogenesis and fronto-orbital advancement and remodeling.Childs Nerv Syst. 2023 May;39(5):1283-1296. doi: 10.1007/s00381-023-05857-9. Epub 2023 Feb 4. Childs Nerv Syst. 2023. PMID: 36738322 Clinical Trial.
-
A Comparison of Endoscope-Assisted and Open Frontoorbital Distraction for the Treatment of Unicoronal Craniosynostosis.Plast Reconstr Surg. 2025 Jan 1;155(1):160e-170e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000011147. Epub 2023 Oct 16. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2025. PMID: 39700250
-
Fronto-Orbital Advancement for Metopic and Unilateral Coronal Craniosynostoses.Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2022 Aug;34(3):367-380. doi: 10.1016/j.coms.2022.01.001. Epub 2022 Jul 2. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2022. PMID: 35787824 Review.
-
Surgical Treatment of Nonsyndromic Unicoronal Craniosynostosis.J Craniofac Surg. 2018 Jul;29(5):1199-1207. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000004509. J Craniofac Surg. 2018. PMID: 29570518 Review.
References
-
- Selber JC, Brooks C, Kurichi JE, Temmen T, Sonnad SS, Whitaker LA (2008) Long-term results following fronto-orbital reconstruction in nonsyndromic unicoronal synostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg 121(5):251e–260e. 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31816a9f88 - PubMed
-
- McCarthy JG, Glasberg SB, Cutting CB et al (1995) Twenty-year experience with early surgery for craniosynostosis: I. Isolated craniofacial synostosis—results and unsolved problems. Plast Reconstr Surg. 96(2):272–283. 10.1097/00006534-199508000-00004 - PubMed
-
- Selber JC, Brooks C, Kurichi JE, Temmen T, Sonnad SS, Whitaker LA (2008) Long-term results following fronto-orbital reconstruction in nonsyndromic unicoronal synostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg 121(5):251e–260e. 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31816a9f88 - PubMed
-
- Hoppe IC, Taylor JA (2021) A cohort study of strabismus rates following correction of the unicoronal craniosynostosis deformity: conventional bilateral fronto-orbital advancement versus fronto-orbital distraction osteogenesis. J Craniofac Surg 32(7):2362–2365. 10.1097/SCS.0000000000007773 - PubMed
-
- Massenburg BB, Tolley PD, Lee A, Susarla SM (2022) Fronto-orbital advancement for metopic and unilateral coronal craniosynostoses. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 34(3):367–380. 10.1016/j.coms.2022.01.001 - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources