Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:The exophthalmos and class III malocclusion seen in Crouzon syndrome can be treated by Le Fort III advancement/distraction. However, reconstructive options for zygomatic retrusion are limited. The authors describe the repair of isolated exorbitism in a patient with Crouzon syndrome, via bilateral zygomatic rotation-advancement. METHODS:A 34-year-old woman with Crouzon syndrome complained of exorbitism and malar hypoplasia. Four years prior, she declined Le Fort III advancement and underwent orthodontic/orthognathic correction of malocclusion. Radiographs were used to develop a computerized surgical plan. Bilateral periorbital osteotomy with advancement/rotation of the zygomatic process was performed using custom osteotomy guides and plates. Images obtained immediately postoperative and 3- and 19-month postoperative were compared to assess surgical stability, accuracy, and soft tissue changes. RESULTS:Decreased globe exposure and increased malar prominence have improved facial balance. Superimposed pre- and postoperative radiographs demonstrate bilateral advancement of the zygomatic body and inferior orbital rim. Superimposition of immediate postoperative and 19-month radiographs showed no relapse. Soft tissue histogram showed increased prominence of the malar eminence, lateral orbital rim, and cheek. CONCLUSIONS:Zygomatic rotation-advancement proved a safe, effective, stable, and predictable treatment for isolated malar hypoplasia in a patient with Crouzon syndrome. Virtual planning can enhance novel complex craniofacial procedures.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Simulation is a standard component of residency training in many surgical subspecialties, yet its impact on knowledge and skills acquisition in plastic surgery training remains poorly defined. We evaluated the potential benefits of simulation-based cleft surgery learning in plastic surgery resident education through a prospective, randomized, blinded trial. METHODS:Thirteen plastic surgery residents were randomized to a digital simulator or textbook demonstrating unilateral cleft lip (UCL) repair. The following parameters were evaluated before (pre-intervention) and after (post-intervention) randomization: knowledge of surgical steps, procedural confidence, markings performance on a three-dimensional (3D) stone model, and surgical performance using a hands-on/high-fidelity 3D haptic model. Participant satisfaction with either educational tool was also assessed. Two expert reviewers blindly graded markings and surgical performance. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated. Wilcoxon signed-rank and Mann-Whitney U tests were used. RESULTS:Interrater reliability was strong for pre-intervention and post-intervention grading of markings (ICC=0.97; p<0.001 and ICC=0.96; p<0.001) and surgical (ICC=0.83; p=0.002 and ICC=0.81; p=0.004) performance. Post-intervention surgical knowledge (40.3±4.4 vs. 33.5±3.7; p=0.03), procedural confidence (24.0±7.0 vs. 14.7±2.3; p=0.03), markings performance (8.0±2.5 vs. 2.9±3.1; p=0.03), and surgical performance (12.3±2.5 vs. 8.2±2.3; p=0.04) significantly improved in the digital simulation group compared to pre-intervention, but not in the textbook group. All participants were more satisfied with the digital simulator as an educational tool (27.7±2.5 vs. 14.4±4.4; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:We present evidence suggesting that digital cognitive simulators lead to significant improvement in surgical knowledge, procedural confidence, markings performance, as well as surgical performance.

This study investigates a comprehensive model of bone regeneration capacity of dypiridamole-loaded 3D-printed bioceramic (DIPY-3DPBC) scaffolds composed of 100% beta-tricalcium phosphate (β -TCP) in an immature rabbit model through the time of facial maturity. The efficacy of this construct was compared to autologous bone graft, the clinical standard of care in pediatric craniofacial reconstruction, with attention paid to volume of regenerated bone by 3D reconstruction, histologic and mechanical properties of regenerated bone, and long-term safety regarding potential craniofacial growth restriction. Additionally, long-term degradation of scaffold constructs was evaluated. At 24 weeks in vivo, DIPY-3DPBC scaffolds demonstrated volumetrically significant osteogenic regeneration of calvarial and alveolar defects comparable to autogenous bone graft with favorable biodegradation of the bioactive ceramic component in vivo. Characterization of regenerated bone reveals osteogenesis of organized, vascularized bone with histologic and mechanical characteristics comparable to native bone. Radiographic and histologic analyses were consistent with patent craniofacial sutures. Lastly, through application of 3D morphometric facial surface analysis, our results support that DIPY-3DPBC scaffolds do not cause premature closure of sutures and preserve normal craniofacial growth. Based on this novel evaluation model, this DIPY-3DPBC scaffold strategy is a promising candidate as a safe, efficacious pediatric bone tissue engineering strategy.

Treatment of cleft lip and palate ordinarily requires multiple interventions spanning the time of birth to adulthood. Restriction of facial growth, a common occurrence in affected children, is due to multiple factors. There are multiple surgical and therapeutic options, which may have influence on facial growth in these patients. As restriction to facial development can have significant implications to form, function, and psychological well-being, practitioners should have an appreciation for the effects of the different cleft therapies to facial growth. We have outlined and thoroughly reviewed in chronological order all of the interventions from birth to adulthood necessary in the comprehensive care of the patient with cleft lip and palate, along with the effects they may or may not have on facial growth.

BACKGROUND:There is no quantitative evidence supporting one unilateral cleft lip (UCL) repair technique over the other with regard to scarring. We sought to evaluate the difference between the extended Mohler and Millard techniques, using 3 scar assessment scales. METHODS:Postoperative frontal and basal photographs of patients undergoing UCL repair were reviewed. Three validated scar assessment scales were used: the Manchester Scar Scale (MSS), modified scar-rating scale (MSRS), and Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale. Lip and nose scars were rated by 5 independent raters using each of the scales. Interrater reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS:Assessment of 116 images for 58 consecutive patients undergoing UCL repair (36 extended Mohler, 22 Millard) was performed. Interrater reliability was excellent for lip scars (ICCs, 0.903 [0.857-0.938] for MSS, 0.913 [0.872-0.944] for MSRS, and 0.850 [0.775-0.902] for SBES) and moderate for nose scar assessment (ICCs, 0.714 [0.579-0.816] for MSS, 0.693 [0.548-0.802] for MSRS, and 0.565 [0.359-0.720] for SBES). No statistically significant difference was found between the extended Mohler and Millard repairs in mean lip scar scores (MSS, 6.983 ± 1.469 vs 6.772 ± 1.175, P = 0.571; MSRS, 5.433 ± 1.530 vs 5.481 ± 1.290, P = 0.902; SBES, 3.633 ± 0.977 vs 3.446 ± 0.995, P = 0.483) or nose scar scores (MSS, 5.644 ± 1.131 vs 5.491 ± 0.689, P = 0.523; MSRS, 4.233 ± 0.987 vs 3.991 ± 0.705, P = 0.320; SBES, 3.933 ± 0.750 vs 4.018 ± 0.486, P = 0.603). CONCLUSIONS:Using 3 validated scar assessment scales, no significant difference was found between the extended Mohler and Millard techniques in terms of lip or nose scars.

Operative experience for the contemporary trainee has become exceedingly more challenging in the setting of more stringent hospital regulations. Surgical training is thus shifting toward more self-directed, independent learning to maximize operative opportunities as they become available; yet, this can prove difficult for complex surgeries like craniofacial procedures. The intricate anatomy and fine reconstructive techniques employed cannot be readily depicted onto a two-dimensional page. To address this educational gap, the Craniofacial Interactive Virtual Assistant-Pro Edition (CIVA-Pro) was developed as a web-based surgical simulator to aid learners with conceptualizing the surgical principles utilized in these cases. The current work reviews the Bilateral Sagittal Split Osteotomy module of CIVA-Pro, providing detailed narratives for each chapter with expert commentary on broadened indications and future directions.

BACKGROUND:The Extended Mohler cleft lip repair restores upper lip form using a columellar flap to fill the defect created by the downward rotation of Cupid's bow. The resulting columella incision is mentioned as a potential drawback. This study seeks to evaluate the morbidity of the resulting scar. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:This retrospective study enrolled 50 unilateral cleft lip patients treated using the Extended Mohler repair. 5 reviewers examined post-operative images. Three validated scar assessment scales were utilized: Manchester Scar Scale (MSS), Modified Scar-Rating Scale (MSRS), and Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale (SBSES). A scar score for the lip and columellar portion of each patient was determined. RESULTS:Three different scar scales demonstrated significantly better scar quality for the columellar portion of the scar compared to the lip portion. The average score for the lip and columella using the MSS was 7.0 ± 1.4 and 5.7 ± 1.1 (P <0.001). The average score for the lip and columella using the MSRS was 5.5 ± 1.4 and 4.3 ± 0.9 (P <0.001). The average score for the lip and columella using the SBSES was 3.5 ± 1.1 and 3.9 ± 0.7 (P = 0.014). The intraclass correlation coefficient for lip scar assessments was 0.901 (MSS), 0.91 (MSRS), and 0.873 (Stony Brook Evaluation Scale [SBES]). The intraclass correlation coefficient for columellar scar assessment was 0.786 (MSS), 0.761 (MSRS), and 0.726 (SBES). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The Extended Mohler unilateral cleft lip columellar scar is of superior quality compared to the lip portion. This analysis ameliorates one of the major concerns regarding the Extended Mohler cleft lip repair.

This retrospective cohort study aimed to determine the impact of a nasoalveolar molding (NAM) protocol on midface growth in school-aged children with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). Data from 56 consecutively treated, NAM-prepared, Caucasian patients with non-syndromic UCLP from a single US cleft palate center were compared to pooled center data based on 56 patients with non-syndromic UCLP treated at 2 Eurocleft centers that did not use presurgical infant orthopedics (non-PSIO). Lateral cephalograms were obtained and 28 landmarks were identified. Published cephalometric measurements from Eurocleft centers were used for comparison. Seven cephalometric measurements (SNA, SNB, ANB, A'N'B', G'-Sn'-Pg', Sn-CT-LS, ANS-Me/N-Me%), available or derivable for both centers, were analyzed. Means and standard deviations for the 7 measurements were calculated for the NAM center. Student's t-tests were used to compare group means for 6 of the measures and a test of proportion was used for ANS-Me/N-Me%. No significant differences were found between the NAM protocol-prepared group and the Eurocleft non-PSIO centers on any of the 7 analyzed cephalometric relationships after accounting for false discovery rate. The NAM treatment protocol does not appear to impact skeletal or soft tissue facial growth in school-aged children with non-syndromic UCLP.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Knowledge of surgical markings for unilateral cleft lip (UCL) repair is critical for surgical competency. However, few appropriate models are accessible to residents and affordable and accurately reproduce this 3-dimensional (3D) deformity. We propose that cleft care units have the capability of creating affordable 3D stone models to teach UCL markings. METHODS:Polyvinyl siloxane and SnapStone were used to create UCL stone models. Thirteen plastic surgery residents were prospectively recruited, provided with a textbook chapter and online module for studying surgical markings for UCL repair, and then asked to perform the markings on a UCL stone model and standardized patient photograph. Learner satisfaction was evaluated using a modified survey based on the Student Evaluation of Educational Quality survey. RESULTS:The production time of each model was 10 minutes, whereas the cost was $1.84. Participants reported that the stone model was more stimulating (4.77 ± 0.44 vs 3.92 ± 0.86; U = 38.0; P = 0.008), increased their interest more (4.70 ± 0.48 vs 3.53 ± 1.20; U = 33.5; P = 0.005), allowed better learning (4.61 ± 0.51 vs 3.08 ± 0.86; U = 10.0; P < 0.001), was clearer (4.62 ± 0.51 vs 3.15 ± 0.90; U = 12.5; P < 0.001), and was more effective for learning cleft lip markings (4.77 ± 0.44 vs 3.08 ± 1.04; U = 9.0; P < 0.001). They were also more likely to recommend it (4.85 ± 0.38 vs 3.15 ± 1.07; U = 7.0; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Plastic surgery residents report that 3D cleft lip stone models are superior training tools to learn cleft lip markings compared with patient photographs. These educational tools have the potential to overcome significant financial, logistic, and time constraints in teaching cleft lip surgery markings.