Advertisement

Child's Nervous System

, Volume 34, Issue 9, pp 1735–1743 | Cite as

Evaluation of parental and surgeon stressors and perceptions of distraction osteogenesis in pediatric craniofacial patients: a cross-sectional survey study

  • Rosaline S. Zhang
  • Lawrence O. Lin
  • Ian C. Hoppe
  • Ari M. Wes
  • Jordan W. Swanson
  • Scott P. Bartlett
  • Jesse A. Taylor
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

There is a paucity of literature on how limitations of distraction osteogenesis (DO) are perceived by physicians and parents of pediatric patients. Specifically understanding which features of DO are most concerning to these two groups may better inform parent education, as well as direct improvements in distraction protocols and devices.

Method

Parents/guardians of patients (between January 2016 and October 2017) being treated with craniofacial distraction were recruited to complete a survey regarding level of stress (1 = not stressful, 9 = maximally stressful) associated with eight features of DO. Craniofacial surgeons completed a survey asking them to report (1) their personal level of stress and (2) their perceptions of parental stress regarding these same eight features of DO.

Results

Thirty-five parents and 15 craniofacial surgeons completed the survey. The risk of the device getting infected was perceived as most stressful by parents (5.5 ± 2.3) followed by the device sticking through the skin (4.9 ± 2.6) and the second operation for removal (4.7 ± 2.3). These same three features also elicited the highest level of stress among surgeons. Surgeon-perceived parental stress regarding turning of the distractor (5.8 ± 1.5) was significantly higher than parent self-reported stress (4.2 ± 2.8, p = 0.042).

Conclusions

Both parents and surgeons perceive risk of device-associated infection, the protrusion of the device through the skin, and the requirement of a second operation for removal as the most stressful drawbacks of distraction. Infection reduction protocols, less obtrusive devices, and devices that do not require removal are potential targets for stress reduction.

Keywords

Craniosynostosis Surgery Device Infection 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

IRB

This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board for research involving human subjects at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Data sharing

The data that support the findings of this study are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author [JT]. The data are not publicly available due to containing information that could compromise research participant privacy/consent.

Supplementary material

381_2018_3827_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (70 kb)
Supplemental Table 1 Comparison of stress levels by diagnosis (PDF 69 kb)
381_2018_3827_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (59 kb)
Supplemental Table 2 Correlation between reported stress level and time of survey acquisition (PDF 59 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Ayoub AF, Richardson W, Barbenel JC (2005) Mandibular elongation by automatic distraction osteogenesis: the first application in humans. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 43(4):324–328CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baas EM, van Gemert BPHM, Bierenbroodspot F, Milstein DMJ, de Lange J (2015) Patient discomfort and other side effects after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy or distraction osteogenesis of the mandible: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 44(9):1119–1124CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bredero-Boelhouwer H, Joosten KFM, van der Hoek VM, Mathijssen IMJ (2013) Family-centred care during midface advancement with a rigid external device: what do families need? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 66(8):1103–1108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Breugem C, Paes E, Kon M (2012) Bioresorbable distraction device for the treatment of airway problems for infants with Robin sequence. Clin Oral Investig 6(4):1325–1331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burstein FD, Williams JK (2005) Mandibular distraction osteogenesis in Pierre Robin sequence: application of a new internal single-stage resorbable device. Plast Reconstr Surg 115(1):61–69PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cho B, Hwang S, Uhm K (2004) Distraction osteogenesis of the cranial vault for the treatment of craniofacial synostosis. J Craniofac Surg 15(1):135–144CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cohen SR, Holmes RE (2001) Internal Le Fort III distraction with biodegradable devices. J Craniofac Surg 12(3):264–272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davidson EH, Brown D, Shetye PR, Greig AVH, Grayson BH, Warren SM, McCarthy JG (2010) The evolution of mandibular distraction: device selection. Plast Reconstr Surg 126(6):2061–2070CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Denny AD (2004) Distraction osteogenesis in Pierre Robin neonates with airway obstruction. Clin Plast Surg 31(2):221–229CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Denny AD, Talisman R, Hanson PR, Recinos RF (2001) Mandibular distraction osteogenesis in very young patients to correct airway obstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 108(2):302–311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fearon JA (2001) The Le Fort III osteotomy: to distract or not to distract? Plast Reconstr Surg 107(5):1091–1103CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fearon JA (2005) Halo distraction of the Le Fort III in syndromic craniosynostosis: a long-term assessment. Plast Reconstr Surg 115(6):1524–1536CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hopper RA, Aspinall C, Heike C, Andrews M, Sittler B, Saltzman B, Ose M (2009) What the patients and parents do not tell you—recollections from families following external LeFort III midface distraction. Plast Surg Nurs 29(2):78–85CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kevin M, Lloyd M, Evans M et al (2017) Experiences in performing posterior calvarial distraction. J Craniofac Surg 28(3):664–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maurice SM, Gachiani JM (2014) Posterior cranial vault distraction with resorbable distraction devices. J Craniofac Surg 25(4):1249–1251CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McCarthy JG (1994) The role of distraction osteogenesis in the reconstruction of the mandible in unilateral craniofacial microsomia. Clin Plast Surg 21(4):625–631PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meling TR, Høgevold H-E, Due-Tønnessen BJ, Skjelbred P (2011) Comparison of perioperative morbidity after LeFort III and monobloc distraction osteogenesis. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 49(2):131–134CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Molina F (2009) Mandibular distraction osteogenesis: a clinical experience of the last 17 years. J Craniofac Surg 20(8):1794–1800CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Monasterio FO, Drucker M, Molina F, Ysunza A (2002) Distraction osteogenesis in Pierre Robin sequence and related respiratory problems in children. J Craniofac Surg 13(1):79–83CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nørholt S, Jensen J, Schou S, Pedersen T (2011) Complications after mandibular distraction osteogenesis: a retrospective study of 131 patients. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontol 111(4):420–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ong J, Harshbarger RJ, Kelley P, George T (2014) Posterior cranial vault distraction osteogenesis: evolution of technique. Semin Plast Surg 28(4):163–178CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Polley JW, Figueroa AA (1997) Distraction osteogenesis: its application in severe mandibular deformities in hemifacial microsomia. J Craniofac Surg 8(5):422–430CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rachmiel A, Aizenbud D, Pillar G, Srouji S (2005) Bilateral mandibular distraction for patients with compromised airway analyzed by three-dimensional CT. Int J Oral Max Surg 34(1):9–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rachmiel A, Emodi O, Rachmiel D, Aizenbud D (2014) Internal mandibular distraction to relieve airway obstruction in children with severe micrognathia. Int J Oral Max Surg 43(10):1176–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rachmiel A, Nseir S, Emodi O, Aizenbud D (2014) External versus internal distraction devices in treatment of obstructive sleep apnea in craniofacial anomalies. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2(7):e188CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shetye PR, Grayson BH, Mackool RJ, MJ G (2006) Long-term stability and growth following unilateral mandibular distraction in growing children with craniofacial microsomia. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(4):985–995CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Steinbacher DM, Skirpan J, Puchała J, Bartlett SP (2011) Expansion of the posterior cranial vault using distraction osteogenesis. Plast Reconstr Surg 127(2):792–801CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Thomas GP, Wall SA, Jayamohan J et al (2014) Lessons learned in posterior cranial vault distraction. J Craniofac Surg 25(5):1721–1727CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tibesar RJ, Sidman JD (2008) Mandibular distraction osteogenesis in the pediatric patient. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 16(6):548–554CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    van Strijen PJ, Breuning KH, Becking AG, Perdijk FBT, Tuinzing DB (2003) Complications in bilateral mandibular distraction osteogenesis using internal devices. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontol 96(4):392–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Verlinden CRA, van de Vijfeijken SECM, Tuinzing DB, Becking AG, Swennen GRJ (2015) Complications of mandibular distraction osteogenesis for acquired deformities: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 44(8):956–964CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    White N, Evans M, Dover S, Noons P, Solanki G, Nishikawa H (2009) Posterior calvarial vault expansion using distraction osteogenesis. Childs Nerv Syst 25(2):231–236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yonehara Y, Hirabayashi S, Sugawara Y, Sakurai A, Harii K (2003) Complications associated with gradual cranial vault distraction osteogenesis for the treatment of craniofacial synostosis. J Craniofac Surg 14(4):526–528CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rosaline S. Zhang
    • 1
  • Lawrence O. Lin
    • 1
  • Ian C. Hoppe
    • 1
  • Ari M. Wes
    • 1
  • Jordan W. Swanson
    • 1
  • Scott P. Bartlett
    • 1
  • Jesse A. Taylor
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Plastic Surgery, Children’s Hospital of PhiladelphiaThe University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations