scholarly journals Axial deformity correction in children via distraction osteogenesis

2006 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 278-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valentin Antoci ◽  
Craig M. Ono ◽  
Valentin Antoci ◽  
Ellen M. Raney
Keyword(s):  
Distraction Osteogenesis ◽  
Deformity Correction

Humeral lengthening and deformity correction in Ollierʼs disease: distraction osteogenesis with a multiaxial correction frame

2008 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 152-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nazzar Tellisi ◽  
Svetlana Ilizarov ◽  
Austin T. Fragomen ◽  
S. Robert Rozbruch
Keyword(s):  
Distraction Osteogenesis ◽  
Deformity Correction ◽  
Humeral Lengthening

scholarly journals Mandibular Deformity Correction by Distraction Osteogenesis

2011 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Md Asaduzzaman ◽  
Quazi Billur Rahman ◽  
Shahid Aziz ◽  
Morshed Asadullah Sikder ◽  
Mahmuda Akhter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Distraction Osteogenesis ◽  
Deformity Correction

Distraction Osteogenesis in the Treatment of Craniofacial Anomalies: Applications and Outcomes

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 1469-1481 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph A. Napoli ◽  
Carrie E. Zimmerman ◽  
Linda D. Vallino
Keyword(s):  
Distraction Osteogenesis ◽  
Bone Growth ◽  
Upper Airway ◽  
Craniofacial Anomalies ◽  
Craniofacial Skeleton ◽  
Facial Skeleton ◽  
Psychosocial Impairment ◽  
And Function ◽  
Correct Structure

Purpose Craniofacial anomalies (CFA) often result in growth abnormalities of the facial skeleton adversely affecting function and appearance. The functional problems caused by the structural anomalies include upper airway obstruction, speech abnormalities, feeding difficulty, hearing deficits, dental/occlusal defects, and cognitive and psychosocial impairment. Managing disorders of the craniofacial skeleton has been improved by the technique known as distraction osteogenesis (DO). In DO, new bone growth is stimulated allowing bones to be lengthened without need for bone graft. The purpose of this clinical focus article is to describe the technique and clinical applications and outcomes of DO in CFA. Conclusion Distraction can be applied to various regions of the craniofacial skeleton to correct structure and function. The benefits of this procedure include improved airway, feeding, occlusion, speech, and appearance, resulting in a better quality of life for patients with CFA.

Computed Tomography-Based Patient-Specific Instrumentation Loses Accuracy with Significant Varus Preoperative Misalignment

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vicente Jesús León-Muñoz ◽  
Mirian López-López ◽  
Alonso José Lisón-Almagro ◽  
Francisco Martínez-Martínez ◽  
Fernando Santonja-Medina
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Deformity Correction ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Control Group ◽  
X Rays ◽  
Varus Alignment ◽  
Patient Specific Instrumentation ◽  
Conventional Instrumentation ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Valgus Alignment

AbstractPatient-specific instrumentation (PSI) has been introduced to simplify and make total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgery more precise, effective, and efficient. We performed this study to determine whether the postoperative coronal alignment is related to preoperative deformity when computed tomography (CT)-based PSI is used for TKA surgery, and how the PSI approach compares with deformity correction obtained with conventional instrumentation. We analyzed pre-and post-operative full length standing hip-knee-ankle (HKA) X-rays of the lower limb in both groups using a convention > 180 degrees for valgus alignment and < 180 degrees for varus alignment. For the PSI group, the mean (± SD) pre-operative HKA angle was 172.09 degrees varus (± 6.69 degrees) with a maximum varus alignment of 21.5 degrees (HKA 158.5) and a maximum valgus alignment of 14.0 degrees. The mean post-operative HKA was 179.43 degrees varus (± 2.32 degrees) with a maximum varus alignment of seven degrees and a maximum valgus alignment of six degrees. There has been a weak correlation among the values of the pre- and postoperative HKA angle. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of postoperative alignment outside the range of 180 ± 3 degrees was significantly higher with a preoperative varus misalignment of 15 degrees or more (aOR: 4.18; 95% confidence interval: 1.35–12.96; p = 0.013). In the control group (conventional instrumentation), this loss of accuracy occurs with preoperative misalignment of 10 degrees. Preoperative misalignment below 15 degrees appears to present minimal influence on postoperative alignment when a CT-based PSI system is used. The CT-based PSI tends to lose accuracy with preoperative varus misalignment over 15 degrees.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document