Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for

  • Author or Editor: Jesse A. Goldstein x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Wendy Chen, Paul A. Gardner, Barton F. Branstetter IV, Shih-Dun Liu, Yue Fang Chang, Carl H. Snyderman, Jesse A. Goldstein, Elizabeth C. Tyler-Kabara and Lindsay A. Schuster

OBJECTIVE

Cranial base development plays a large role in anterior and vertical maxillary growth through 7 years of age, and the effect of early endonasal cranial base surgery on midface growth is unknown. The authors present their experience with pediatric endoscopic endonasal surgery (EES) and long-term midface growth.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of cases where EES was performed from 2000 to 2016. Patients who underwent their first EES of the skull base before age 7 (prior to cranial suture fusion) and had a complete set of pre- and postoperative imaging studies (CT or MRI) with at least 1 year of follow-up were included. A radiologist performed measurements (sella-nasion [S-N] distance and angles between the sella, nasion, and the most concave points of the anterior maxilla [A point] or anterior mandibular synthesis [B point], the SNA, SNB, and ANB angles), which were compared to age- and sex-matched Bolton standards. A Z-score test was used; significance was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

The early surgery group had 11 patients, with an average follow-up of 5 years; the late surgery group had 33 patients. Most tumors were benign; 1 patient with a panclival arteriovenous malformation was a significant outlier for all measurements. Comparing the measurements obtained in the early surgery group to Bolton standard norms, the authors found no significant difference in postoperative SNA (p = 0.10), SNB (p = 0.14), or ANB (0.67) angles. The S-N distance was reduced both pre- and postoperatively (SD 1.5, p = 0.01 and p = 0.009). Sex had no significant effect. Compared to patients who had surgery after the age of 7 years, the early surgery group demonstrated no significant difference in pre- to postoperative changes with regard to S-N distance (p = 0.87), SNA angle (p = 0.89), or ANB angle (p = 0.14). Lesion type (craniopharyngioma, angiofibroma, and other types) had no significant effect in either age group.

CONCLUSIONS

Though our cohort of patients with skull base lesions demonstrated some abnormal measurements in the maxillary-mandibular relationship before their operation, their postoperative cephalometrics fell within the normal range and showed no significant difference from those of patients who underwent operations at an older age. Therefore, there appears to be no evidence of impact of endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery on craniofacial development within the growth period studied.

Restricted access

John R. W. Kestle, Amy Lee, Richard C. E. Anderson, Barbu Gociman, Kamlesh B. Patel, Matthew D. Smyth, Craig Birgfeld, Ian F. Pollack, Jesse A. Goldstein, Mandeep Tamber, Thomas Imahiyerobo, Faizi A. Siddiqi and for the Synostosis Research Group

OBJECTIVE

The authors created a collaborative network, the Synostosis Research Group (SynRG), to facilitate multicenter clinical research on craniosynostosis. To identify common and differing practice patterns within the network, they assessed the SynRG surgeons’ management preferences for sagittal synostosis. These results will be incorporated into planning cooperative studies.

METHODS

The SynRG consists of 12 surgeons at 5 clinical sites. An email survey was distributed to SynRG surgeons in late 2016, and responses were collected through early 2017. Responses were collated and analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

All of the surgeons—7 plastic/craniofacial surgeons and 5 neurosurgeons—completed the survey. They varied in both experience (1–24 years) and sagittal synostosis case volume in the preceding year (5–45 cases). Three sites routinely perform preoperative CT scans. The preferred surgical technique for children younger than 3 months is strip craniectomy (10/12 surgeons), whereas children older than 6 months are all treated with open cranial vault surgery. Pre-incision cefazolin, preoperative complete blood count panels, and an arterial line were used by most surgeons, but tranexamic acid was used routinely at 3 sites and never at the other 2 sites. Among surgeons performing endoscopic strip craniectomy surgery (SCS), most create a 5-cm-wide craniectomy, whereas 2 surgeons create a 2-cm strip. Four surgeons routinely send endoscopic SCS patients to the intensive care unit after surgery. Two of the 5 sites routinely obtain a CT scan within the 1st year after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The SynRG surgeons vary substantially in the use of imaging, the choice of surgical procedure and technique, and follow-up. A collaborative network will provide the opportunity to study different practice patterns, reduce variation, and contribute multicenter data on the management of children with craniosynostosis.