they both do the same thing. sarpe is outdated. i would say segmented lefort, but as i told you earlier--are you really sure you want to go through this again? i have similar type of deal
I'm pretty sure. I'm not pleased with my results and the buccal corridors and narrowness of the anterior upper palate is a part of that.
Based on the information I got, they do not do the same thing. With the multi-segment LeFort, the widening would occur posteriorly and superiorly. I understand there would still be some anterior expansion in this scenario, just not to the extent as with SARPE. SARPE, by simply widening along the middle of the palate/jaw, will definitely cause significant anterior expansion.
I understand that between the two options, LeFort is superior when there is forward/backward (sagittal) or upward/downward (vertical) movement needed, and SARPE is superior when there these things are not needed.
That said, I can see other potential benefit from redoing the upper jaw surgery, including fixing the cant of the teeth, possibly moving the maxilla forward a bit to give more support to the midface. Perhaps the solution is to do both procedures.
This is interesting:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19062299. This study claims somewhat more stable results for maxillary expansion via LeFort, as compared with via SARPE.
I see this also:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4411735/This article states: "...most studies reported that SARME is more stable and has lower morbidity in complications than segmental osteotomy." Here "SARME" being the thing as SARPE. So, different sources have a different viewpoint - this is unsurprising to me.
This second article also states: "In our case, the surgical wafer was maintained for 6 weeks and transverse relapse occurred almost immediately after wafer removal. This relapse can be explained by the short retention period, and could have been prevented by a longer retention period. The retention period after transverse gain in adult patients should be at least 3 months, and lengthening of the retention period is recommended when it is critical to maintain arch width. Phillips et al. suggested that overexpansion of 2 to 3 mm should be performed to prevent relapse."