Rigid versus Resorbable Plate Fixation in Fronto-Orbital Advancement in Unicoronal Stenosis - A Retrospective Study.

INTRODUCTION

Rigid plating fixation (RPF) and resorbable plating systems (RPS) advanced the field of reconstruction in craniomaxillofacial region. However, their performance in patients, particularly the effect on bone remodeling at site of hardware placement is not much documented. This manuscript aims to compare the performance of RPF and RPS in a cohort using a retrospective audit of case records.

METHODS

Archival records were searched for patients who had undergone cranial metal-RPF or RPS or combination for the correction of craniofacial deformities following inclusion-exclusion criteria. From records, data of the quality and quantity of bone formed along the site of plate fixation as compared with the adjacent site, accommodating or facilitating brain growth, and persistence of bone deformity at the site of hardware placement were collected at the end of the follow-up period. A total of 128 sites from 18 individuals (6 with exclusive metal-RPF and 12 with RPS) mean age of 7.45 ± 7.28 (Median 4; IQR of 8.88;2.6-11.5) who underwent cranial bone remodeling surgery formed the study group.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant difference between the RPF and PRS system at the fronto-orbital suture (P = 0.002) and coronal suture (P = 0.036) with bone quality and quantity.

DISCUSSION: The RPF system was rigid but had a set of issues, while RPS has advantages and limitations. The qualitative difference in between the two systems is different. Due to inherent dissimilarity, the two systems cannot be interchanged and due diligence has to be exercised while deciding on the system. More prospective studies are needed to validate the findings.