Clarifying the Relationships among the Different Features of the OMENS+ Classification in Craniofacial Microsomia

Tuin, A. Jorien; Tahiri, Youssef; Paine, Kaitlyn M.; Paliga, J. Thomas; Taylor, Jesse A.; Bartlett, Scott P.

doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000000843

Cited by 50 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This classification grades the orbital deformity by subjective evaluation of size and position (5). There is inconsistency in the reported incidence and severity of the orbital deformity as well as variability in the correlation between orbital involvement and the type of mandibular deformity (5,6). These differences may be due to the fact that previous studies used subjective clinical scores of orbital involvement rather than objective measurements of orbital size.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is There a Difference in Orbital Volume Between Affected and Unaffected Sides in Patients With Unilateral Craniofacial Microsomia?

Gribova

Pluijmers

Resnick³

et al. 2018

Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is There a Difference in Orbital Volume Between Affected and Unaffected Sides in Patients With Unilateral Craniofacial Microsomia?

Gribova

Pluijmers

Resnick³

et al. 2018

Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Two imperatives, thus, shaped our refinement of the classification: what are the most common features of algorithms for managing the mandible in CFM and what is the evidence base for these practices? For instance, the zygomatic arch in CFM demonstrates variability that may not correspond with the mandible other OMENS features, 26 yet if deformed may suggest to the surgeon the need to construct a neo-temporal fossa. 27 Given reports of high ankylosis rates associated with temporomandibular joint reconstruction as opposed to apposition of the rib/fibular construct with the skull base in type 3 or 4 deformities, we did not subclassify based on zygomatic arch deformity or degree of medialization of the condylar remnant.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surgical Classification of the Mandibular Deformity in Craniofacial Microsomia Using 3-Dimensional Computed Tomography

Swanson

Mitchell

Wink

et al. 2016

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Grading systems of the mandibular deformity in craniofacial microsomia (CFM) based on conventional radiographs have shown low interrater reproducibility among craniofacial surgeons. We sought to design and validate a classification based on 3-dimensional CT (3dCT) that correlates features of the deformity with surgical treatment.Methods:CFM mandibular deformities were classified as normal (T0), mild (hypoplastic, likely treated with orthodontics or orthognathic surgery; T1), moderate (vertically deficient ramus, likely treated with distraction osteogenesis; T2), or severe (ramus rudimentary or absent, with either adequate or inadequate mandibular body bone stock; T3 and T4, likely treated with costochondral graft or free fibular flap, respectively). The 3dCT face scans of CFM patients were randomized and then classified by craniofacial surgeons. Pairwise agreement and Fleiss' κ were used to assess interrater reliability.Results:The 3dCT images of 43 patients with CFM (aged 0.1–15.8 years) were reviewed by 15 craniofacial surgeons, representing an average 15.2 years of experience. Reviewers demonstrated fair interrater reliability with average pairwise agreement of 50.4 ± 9.9% (Fleiss' κ = 0.34). This represents significant improvement over the Pruzansky–Kaban classification (pairwise agreement, 39.2%; P = 0.0033.) Reviewers demonstrated substantial interrater reliability with average pairwise agreement of 83.0 ± 7.6% (κ = 0.64) distinguishing deformities requiring graft or flap reconstruction (T3 and T4) from others.Conclusion:The proposed classification, designed for the era of 3dCT, shows improved consensus with respect to stratifying the severity of mandibular deformity and type of operative management.

show abstract

“…Y se postuló además una representación pictográfica de la OMENS+ (2007), la cual fue luego modificada en 2011, con el fin de facilitar su comprensión en la prác-tica clínica, en la docencia y en la estandarización de la clasificación de pacientes con MHF [11][12][13] .…”

Section: S: Deficiencia En Tejido Blando (Soft Tissue)unclassified

Síndrome de Goldenhar y microsomía hemifacial. Revisión de la literatura

Cazenave

Leiva

Morovic

2017

Odontol. sanmarquina

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

La microsomía hemifacial corresponde a la segunda malformación congénita en prevalencia, luego de la fisura labiopalatina, y se describe como una alteración congénita del primer y el segundo arcos branquiales. El síndrome de Goldenhar tiene características típicas de la microsomía hemifacial, con la adición de dermoides epibulbares y anomalías vertebrales. Ambas patologías presentan características de expresión variable y por tanto los tratamientos son acordes a su individualidad. En esta revisión de tema se analizan su etiología, clasificaciones, características y tratamiento.

show abstract

Clarifying the Relationships among the Different Features of the OMENS+ Classification in Craniofacial Microsomia

Abstract: Risk, III.

Cited by 50 publications

References 19 publications

Is There a Difference in Orbital Volume Between Affected and Unaffected Sides in Patients With Unilateral Craniofacial Microsomia?

Is There a Difference in Orbital Volume Between Affected and Unaffected Sides in Patients With Unilateral Craniofacial Microsomia?

Surgical Classification of the Mandibular Deformity in Craniofacial Microsomia Using 3-Dimensional Computed Tomography

Síndrome de Goldenhar y microsomía hemifacial. Revisión de la literatura

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About