Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Reply

Long-Term Results in Isolated Metopic Synostosis

The Oxford Experience over 22 Years

Natghian, Hamidreza, M.D.; Song, Marie, M.R.C.S.; Jayamohan, Jayaratnam, F.R.C.S.; Johnson, David, D.M., F.R.C.S.; Magdum, Shailendra, F.R.C.S.; Richards, Peter, F.R.C.S.; Wall, Steven, F.C.S.(S.A.)Plast.

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: June 2019 - Volume 143 - Issue 6 - p 1314e–1315e
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005662
Letters
Free

Oxford Craniofacial Unit, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom

Presented at the 17th Biennal Congress of the International Society of Craniofacial Surgery, October 24 through 28, 2017, in Cancun, Mexico.

Correspondence to Dr. Natghian, Oxford Craniofacial Unit, Level LG1, West Wing, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headley Way, Headington, OX3 9DU Oxford, United Kingdom, hamidreza.natghian@gmail.com, Instagram: @oxfordcranio

Back to Top | Article Outline

Sir:

We thank Drs. Lai and Jin for their interest in our retrospective study of 245 patients with isolated metopic synostosis who were treated at the Oxford Craniofacial Unit between February of 1995 and February of 2017.1 Since the establishment our department, stainless steel wires have been the preferred fixation method in craniosynostosis surgery. However, we are aware of the controversy that exists with regard to the ideal form of bone fixation and that the use of rigid internal fixation systems (titanium and bioabsorbable devices) predominate in most craniofacial units.2 At the Oxford Craniofacial Unit, we believe there is no ideal fixation method and that each system has its disadvantages, particularly with the concern related to internal translocation of plates and the difficulty in dealing with embedded/integrated plates if secondary surgery is required in terms of this letter.3 We prefer stainless steel wires because we have found them to be reliable, inexpensive, and easy and quick to use. A further retrospective study on the use of these wires over the past 22 years at the Oxford Craniofacial Unit has demonstrated that less than 1 percent of all inserted wires had to be removed. In addition, a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to compare the primary use of stainless steel wires to the use of resorbable plates in craniosynostosis surgery, in the form of a projected estimated cost in our patients over a 22-year period. Although this is a specific comparison with resorbable plates as opposed to the comparison with a titanium system, we were able to demonstrate that use of stainless steel wires in craniosynostosis surgery remains 17.5 times cheaper. Specifically, the latter took into account the cost of additional surgical procedures performed for wire removal. The article, “A 22-Year Review of the Use of Stainless Wires in Craniosynostosis Surgery: A Single-Center Study,” has recently been published in the Journal of Craniofacial Surgery.4

We have found that very few (2.9 percent) of our patients experience recurrent elevated intracranial pressures necessitating secondary re-expansion procedures.1 Contrary to the comment in this letter, in our experience, genetic mutations associated with intrinsic bone biology along the lines of the FGFR-associated syndromes are rare in metopic synostosis and do not substantially contribute to the reoperation risks. The role of the recently described SMAD6 mutations, which are reported to occur in a small percentage of metopic synostosis patients, still needs to be fully clarified, but in our albeit brief review of available results in our study, these mutations do not as yet seem to be associated with a higher reoperative risk.5 Secure fixation of the neoforehead with wires is necessary to form a stable construct, therefore preventing early mechanical true forehead relapse. (The same technique is used in unicoronal and bicoronal synostosis related procedures.) Consequently, we do not believe that our surgical technique of secure wiring of the neoforehead construct increases the risk of raised intracranial pressure postoperatively.

Back to Top | Article Outline

DISCLOSURE

The authors have no financial disclosure to report.

Hamidreza Natghian, M.D.

Marie Song, M.R.C.S.

Jayaratnam Jayamohan, F.R.C.S.

David Johnson, D.M., F.R.C.S.

Shailendra Magdum, F.R.C.S.

Peter Richards, F.R.C.S.

Steven Wall, F.C.S.(S.A.)Plast.

Oxford Craniofacial Unit

John Radcliffe Hospital

Oxford, United Kingdom

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1. Natghian H, Song M, Jayamohan J, et al. Long-term results in isolated metopic synostosis: The Oxford experience over 22 years. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142:509e–515e.
2. Goodrich JT, Sandler AL, Tepper O. A review of reconstructive materials for use in craniofacial surgery bone fixation materials, bone substitutes, and distractors. Childs Nerv Syst. 2012;28:1577–1588.
3. Rovati LC, Pricca M, Caronni EP, Granata G, Donati R, Gaini SM. A delayed complication with steel wire osteosynthesis. J Craniofac Surg. 1997;8:323–325.
4. Natghian H, Song M, Wall S, et al. Review of the use of stainless wires in craniosynostosis surgery. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30:550–553.
5. Timberlake AT, Choi J, Zaidi S, et al. Two locus inheritance of non-syndromic midline craniosynostosis via rare SMAD6 and common BMP2 alleles. eLife 2016;5:e20125. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.20125.
Back to Top | Article Outline

GUIDELINES

Letters to the Editor, discussing material recently published in the Journal, are welcome. They will have the best chance of acceptance if they are received within 8 weeks of an article’s publication. Letters to the Editor may be published with a response from the authors of the article being discussed. Discussions beyond the initial letter and response will not be published. Letters submitted pertaining to published Discussions of articles will not be printed. Letters to the Editor are not usually peer reviewed, but the Journal may invite replies from the authors of the original publication. All Letters are published at the discretion of the Editor.

Letters submitted should pose a specific question that clarifies a point that either was not made in the article or was unclear, and therefore a response from the corresponding author of the article is requested.

Authors will be listed in the order in which they appear in the submission. Letters should be submitted electronically via PRS’ enkwell, at www.editorialmanager.com/prs/.

We reserve the right to edit Letters to meet requirements of space and format. Any financial interests relevant to the content of the correspondence must be disclosed. Submission of a Letter constitutes permission for the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and its licensees and asignees to publish it in the Journal and in any other form or medium.

The views, opinions, and conclusions expressed in the Letters to the Editor represent the personal opinions of the individual writers and not those of the publisher, the Editorial Board, or the sponsors of the Journal. Any stated views, opinions, and conclusions do not reflect the policy of any of the sponsoring organizations or of the institutions with which the writer is affiliated, and the publisher, the Editorial Board, and the sponsoring organizations assume no responsibility for the content of such correspondence.

The Journal requests that individuals submit no more than five (5) letters to Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery in a calendar year.

©2019American Society of Plastic Surgeons