ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Outcomes and Complications of Monobloc Versus Le Fort III Procedures for Treating Craniosynostosis: A Literature Review.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Craniosynostosis is a congenital disorder resulting in the early fusion of several bones in the skull, causing a deformity of the head and facial structures. The 2 most commonly performed surgical procedures to treat craniosynostosis include the monobloc and Le Fort III procedures. This literature review compares the functional and anatomical outcomes and complications between the monobloc and Le Fort III procedures for treating craniosynostosis. Methods: A PubMed search was conducted to identify studies assessing the outcomes following monobloc and Le Fort procedures. Data on anatomical changes, ophthalmic, airway, and neurological sequelae, as well as miscellaneous infectious or aesthetic complications were extracted from each study. Results: A total of 63 articles were included for analysis. The average length of midface advancement across distraction and nondistraction procedures was significantly higher in the monobloc cases (14.28 mm; 98.8% of patients with distraction) compared with Le Fort III cases (12.26 mm; 63% of patients with distraction) ( Conclusions: In summary, this review demonstrates that both the monobloc and Le Fort III procedures are effective in producing maxillofacial advancement and correcting craniosynostosis, with the monobloc procedure demonstrating significantly greater average advancement. Future research should investigate the comparison of aesthetic and obstructive sleep apnea outcomes further.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.