Analysis of Fronto-orbital Advancement for Apert, Crouzon, Pfeiffer, and Saethre-Chotzen Syndromes

Abstract

The purposes of this study were (1) to document outcome after primary fronto-orbital advancement for the four major eponymous craniosynostotic syndromes (Apert, Crouzon, Pfeiffer, and Saethre-Chotzen) and (2) to identify factors that might influence need for primary and secondary fronto-orbital advancement or foreheadplasty. Also tested was the hypothesis that coincident sagittal synostosis could modulate brachycephaly and affect whether a primary or secondary frontal operation was necessary. Data were collected on age and indications for initial operation, type of primary and secondary frontal procedures, and concomitant sagittal synostosis. Patients initially managed by subcranial Le Fort III were included in the study group but excluded from analysis of fronto-orbital advancement. Patients treated by monobloc advancement or Le Fort III osteotomies with frontal grafting or Anderl modification were assessed as having had primary fronto-orbital advancement. Minimum time to follow-up was 5 years. A total of 126 patients met inclusion criteria. Lateral photographs were examined to assess preoperative and postoperative sagittal position of supraorbital rims-to-globes. Frontal re-advancement was indicated if the corneal apex was anterior to the supraorbital rim. Foreheadplasty was indicated for unacceptable frontal contour and normal supraorbital rim-to-globe relationship. Primary correction for frontal retrusion was not required in 4 percent of Apert (1 of 25), 16 percent of Crouzon (7 of 44), 6 percent of Pfeiffer (2 of 31), and 19 percent of Saethre-Chotzen (5 of 26) patients. Of those infants who had a primary fronto-orbital advancement, reoperation for either supraorbital retrusion or frontal deformity was necessary in all 16 Apert patients and in 5 of 19 Crouzon (26 percent), 10 of 26 Pfeiffer (38 percent), and 13 of 20 Saethre-Chotzen (65 percent) patients (p < 0.001). Age at initial fronto-orbital advancement did not influence reoperative rate. No correlation was found between concomitant sagittal synostosis and necessity for primary or secondary frontal correction (p = 0.22). In summary, phenotypic diagnosis was determinant for outcome as defined by need for secondary fronto-orbital advancement, foreheadplasty, or both. Apert patients had the highest incidence of reoperation for frontal retrusion or forehead contour. Crouzon and Saethre-Chotzen patients were most likely to express a minor phenotype and not require fronto-orbital correction. Coincident sagittal synostosis did not influence frontal projection, as reflected in need for either primary or secondary frontal advancement.