{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.036228023441662226, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02290889717634523, 'mean_word_length': 5.387755102040816, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 5, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Cohort Study of Strabismus Rates Following Correction of the Unicoronal Craniosynostosis Deformity: Conventional Bilateral Fronto-Orbital Advancement Versus Fronto-Orbital Distraction Osteogenesis

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text Background: The purpose of this prospective study is to compare perioperative morbidity and strabismus rates between traditional fronto-orbital advancement reconstruction (FOAR) and fronto-orbital distraction osteogenesis (FODO) in unicoronal craniosynostosis (UCS). Method: A consecutive group of 15 patients undergoing FODO for isolated UCS were compared to a contemporaneous group of 15 patients undergoing traditional FOAR for UCS. Patient age, operative time, blood loss, blood replacement, technical details of the surgery, length of stay, complications, and strabismus rates were documented and compared statistically using chi-square and Student t test with a significance value of 0.05. Results: The 15 patients undergoing FODO were younger (6.3 and 9.8 months, P < 0.05), experienced less operative time for the initial procedure (111 versus 190 minutes, P < 0.01), less blood loss (26% versus 50% of total blood volume, P < 0.01), and less blood replacement (40% versus 60% of total blood volume, P < 0.05). One patient in the FODO group experienced a new-onset strabismus postoperatively compared with 5 in the FOAR group (P < 0.05). There were no complications requiring a return to the operating room in either group. Conclusions: Fronto-orbital distraction osteogenesis for the treatment of isolated UCS is associated with a favorable perioperative morbidity profile and a decreased incidence of postoperative strabismus compared with traditional FOAR. These positive factors are tempered by the need for an additional procedure for removal of the device and lack of long-term outcomes data on the technique.