Rate of craniometric change following suture release in patients with metopic and sagittal craniosynostosis

View More View Less
  • 1 School of Medicine, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington;
  • | 2 Division of Neurosurgery, Connecticut Children’s, Hartford; and
  • | 3 Department of Surgery, UConn School of Medicine, Farmington, Connecticut
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $515.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
Print or Print + Online

OBJECTIVE

Craniosynostosis is a congenital disorder resulting from the premature fusion of cranial sutures in the infant skull. This condition results in significant cosmetic deformity and can impede neurodevelopment, if left untreated. Currently, rates of craniometric change following minimally invasive surgery have only been examined for sagittal craniosynostosis. A better understanding of postoperative skull adaptations in other craniosynostosis subtypes is needed to objectively categorize surgical outcomes and guide length of cranial orthosis therapy.

METHODS

Eleven patients with sagittal and 8 with metopic craniosynostosis treated using endoscopic strip craniectomy and postoperative helmet orthoses were retrospectively reviewed. Using semiautomated image analysis of top-down orthogonal 2D photographs, the following craniometrics were recorded before surgery and at postoperative visits: cephalic index (CI), cranial vault asymmetry index (CVAI), anterior arc angle (AAA), posterior arc angle (PAA), anterior-middle width ratio (AMWR), anterior-posterior width ratio (APWR), left-right height ratio (LRHR), sagittal Hu moment (Sag-Hu), and brachycephaly Hu moment (Brachy-Hu). These craniometrics were then normalized to photograph-based measurements of normocephalic patients and the rates of change between metopic and sagittal craniosynostoses were compared.

RESULTS

Patients with sagittal craniosynostosis exhibited significantly lower CI, lower PAA, higher AMWR, higher APWR, lower Sag-Hu, and higher Brachy-Hu preoperatively compared to patients with normocephalic craniosynostosis. Patients with metopic craniosynostosis exhibited lower AAA and AMWR preoperatively compared to normocephalic subjects. Sagittal and metopic patients had a rapid initial change in normalized CI or AAA, respectively. Craniometric rates of change that significantly differed between metopic and sagittal patients were found in AAA (p < 0.001), AMWR (p < 0.001), and APWR (p < 0.0001). Metopic patients had a prolonged AAA change with a significantly different rate of change up to 6 months postoperatively (median at 3 months = 0.027 normalized units/day, median at 6 months = 0.017 normalized units/day, and median at > 6 months = 0.007 normalized units/day), while sagittal CI rate of change at these time points was not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with metopic craniosynostosis have a prolonged rate of change compared to patients with sagittal craniosynostosis and may benefit from longer helmet use and extended postoperative follow-up. Categorizing craniometric changes for other craniosynostosis subtypes will be important for evaluating current treatment guidelines.

ABBREVIATIONS

AAA = anterior arc angle; AMWR = anterior-middle width ratio; APWR = anterior-posterior width ratio; Brachy-Hu = brachycephaly Hu moment; CI = cephalic index; CVAI = cranial vault asymmetry index; LRHR = left-right height ratio; PAA = posterior arc angle; Sag-Hu = sagittal Hu moment.

JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $515.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
  • 1

    Proctor MR, Meara JG. A review of the management of single-suture craniosynostosis, past, present, and future. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2019;24(6):622631.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Kajdic N, Spazzapan P, Velnar T. Craniosynostosis - Recognition, clinical characteristics, and treatment. Bosn J Basic Med Sci. 2018;18(2):110116.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Cornelissen M, den Ottelander B, Rizopoulos D, van der Hulst R, Mink van der Molen A, van der Horst C, et al. Increase of prevalence of craniosynostosis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016;44(9):12731279.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Boulet SL, Rasmussen SA, Honein MA. A population-based study of craniosynostosis in metropolitan Atlanta, 1989-2003. Am J Med Genet A. 2008;146A(8):984991.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    van der Meulen J. Metopic synostosis. Childs Nerv Syst. 2012;28(9):13591367.

  • 6

    Yilmaz E, Mihci E, Nur B, Alper OM, Taçoy Ş. Recent advances in craniosynostosis. Pediatr Neurol. 2019;99:715.

  • 7

    Speltz ML, Kapp-Simon KA, Cunningham M, Marsh J, Dawson G. Single-suture craniosynostosis: a review of neurobehavioral research and theory. J Pediatr Psychol. 2004;29(8):651668.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Thompson DN, Malcolm GP, Jones BM, Harkness WJ, Hayward RD. Intracranial pressure in single-suture craniosynostosis. Pediatr Neurosurg. 1995;22(5):235240.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Ridgway EB, Berry-Candelario J, Grondin RT, Rogers GF, Proctor MR. The management of sagittal synostosis using endoscopic suturectomy and postoperative helmet therapy. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2011;7(6):620626.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Proctor MR. Endoscopic craniosynostosis repair. Transl Pediatr. 2014;3(3):247258.

  • 11

    Riordan CP, Zurakowski D, Meier PM, Alexopoulos G, Meara JG, Proctor MR, Goobie SM. Minimally invasive endoscopic surgery for infantile craniosynostosis: a longitudinal cohort study. J Pediatr. 2020;216:142149.e2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Wes AM, Naran S, Sun J, Mazzaferro D, Xu W, Nguyen P, et al. The Whitaker Classification of craniosynostosis outcomes: an assessment of interrater reliability. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(4):579e586e.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Bookland MJ, Ahn ES, Stoltz P, Martin JE. Image processing and machine learning for telehealth craniosynostosis screening in newborns. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2021;27(5):581588.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Pickersgill NA, Skolnick GB, Naidoo SD, Smyth MD, Patel KB. Regression of cephalic index following endoscopic repair of sagittal synostosis. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2018;23(1):5460.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Iyer RR, Ye X, Jin Q, Lu Y, Liyanage L, Ahn ES. Optimal duration of postoperative helmet therapy following endoscopic strip craniectomy for sagittal craniosynostosis. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2018;22(6):610615.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Wang J, Zou D, Li Z, Huang P, Li D, Shao Y, et al. Mechanical properties of cranial bones and sutures in 1-2-year-old infants. Med Sci Monit. 2014;20:18081813.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Fearon JA, Ditthakasem K, Herbert M, Kolar J. An appraisal of the cephalic index in sagittal craniosynostosis, and the unseen third dimension. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(1):138145.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Ramaswamy A, Yu M, Drangsholt S, Ng E, Culligan PJ, Schlegel PN, Hu JC. Patient satisfaction with telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic: retrospective cohort study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(9):e20786.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Wilbrand JF, Wilbrand M, Malik CY, Howaldt HP, Streckbein P, Schaaf H, Kerkmann H. Complications in helmet therapy. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012;40(4):341346.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 436 436 436
Full Text Views 60 60 60
PDF Downloads 36 36 36
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0