Is There an Advantage to Minimizing Surgery in Scaphocephaly? A Study on Extended Strip Craniectomy Versus Extensive Cranial Vault Remodeling

Long-term results of minimally invasive strip craniectomy without helmet therapy for scaphocephaly - a single-centre experience

Scaphocephaly is the most common type of craniosynostosis and various surgical techniques are used for treatment. Due to late postoperative changes of the head shape, long-term outcome data is important for evaluating any new surgical technique. At our institution, minimally invasive strip craniectomy without regular helmet therapy is the standard treatment in scaphocephalic patients. Between October 2021 and February 2023, we retrospectively examined the skull shape of patients who underwent minimally invasive strip craniectomy for scaphocephaly using a 3D surface scan technique. The cephalic index (CI), the need for helmet therapy and additional cosmetic outcome parameters were investigated. We included 70 patients (72.5% male). The mean follow-up time was 46 (10-125) months and the mean CI was 75.7 (66.7-85.2). In 58 patients, the final cosmetic result was rated as "excellent/good" (mean CI: 76.3; 70.4-85.0), in 11 as "intermediate" (mean CI: 73.3; 66.7-77.6), and in one case as "unsatisfactory" (CI 69.3). The presence of a suboccipital protrusion was associated with a "less than good" outcome. The CI correlated significantly with the overall outcome, the presence of frontal bossing, and the interval between scan and surgery (age at scan). Minimally invasive strip craniectomy is an elegant and safe method to correct scaphocephaly. Our data show good cosmetic results in the long term even without regular postoperative helmet therapy.

Craniometric and Aesthetic Outcomes in Craniosynostosis Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the published comparative aesthetic outcomes, and its determinants, for craniosynostoses surgically treated by minimally-invasive cranial procedures and open cranial vault remodeling (CVR).

DESIGN

PRISMA-compliant systematic review.

SETTING

Not-applicable.

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS

Articles were included if they compared spring cranioplasty, strip minimally-invasive craniectomy or CVR for outcomes related to aesthetics or head shape. Forty-two studies were included, comprising 2402 patients.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The craniometric and PROM used to determine surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies (59%) evaluated sagittal craniosynostosis, with metopic (7;17%) and unicoronal (4;10%) the next most prevalent. Thirty-eight studies (90%) included CVR, 24 (57%) included strip craniectomy with helmeting, 9 (22%) included strip craniectomy without helmeting, 11 (26%) included spring cranioplasty, and 3 (7%) included vault distraction. A majority of studies only used 1 (43%) or 2 (14%) craniometric measures to compare techniques. In sagittal synostosis, 13 (59%) studies showed no difference in craniometric outcomes, 5 (23%) showed better results with CVR, 3 (14%) with strip craniectomy, and 1 (5%) with springs. In studies describing other synostoses, 10/14 (71%) were equivocal. Subjective outcome measures followed similar trends. Meta-analysis shows no significant difference in cranial index (CI) outcomes between CVR and less invasive procedures in patients with sagittal synostosis.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no difference in CI outcomes between CVR and less invasive procedures. The majority of literature comparing craniometric and aesthetic outcomes between CVR and less invasive procedures shows equivocal results for sagittal synostosis. However, the heterogeneity of data for other craniosynostoses did not allow meta-analysis.

Sagittal Craniosynostosis: Comparing Surgical Techniques Using 3D Photogrammetry

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare three surgical interventions for correction of sagittal synostosis-frontobiparietal remodeling (FBR), extended strip craniotomy (ESC), and spring-assisted correction (SAC)-based on three-dimensional (3D) photogrammetry and operation characteristics.

METHODS

Patients who were born between 1991 and 2019 and diagnosed with nonsyndromic sagittal synostosis who underwent FBR, ESC, or SAC and had at least one postoperative 3D photogrammetry image taken during one of six follow-up appointments until age 6 were considered for this study. Operative characteristics, postoperative complications, reinterventions, and presence of intracranial hypertension were collected. To assess cranial growth, orthogonal cranial slices and 3D photocephalometric measurements were extracted automatically and evaluated from 3D photogrammetry images.

RESULTS

A total of 322 postoperative 3D images from 218 patients were included. After correcting for age and sex, no significant differences were observed in 3D photocephalometric measurements. Mean cranial shapes suggested that postoperative growth and shape gradually normalized with higher occipitofrontal head circumference and intracranial volume values compared with normal values, regardless of type of surgery. Flattening of the vertex seems to persist after surgical correction. The authors' cranial 3D mesh processing tool has been made publicly available as a part of this study.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that until age 6, there are no significant differences among the FBR, ESC, and SAC in their ability to correct sagittal synostosis with regard to 3D photocephalometric measurements. Therefore, efforts should be made to ensure early diagnosis so that minimally invasive surgery is a viable treatment option.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Three-Dimensional Assessment of Frontal Bossing and Temporal Pinching in Patients with Sagittal Craniosynostosis Using Curvature Analysis

BACKGROUND

Sagittal craniosynostosis results in varying degrees of frontal bossing and bilateral temporal pinching. This study assessed the three-dimensional changes in these regions using curvature analysis and volumetric analysis before and 1 year after extended sagittal strip craniectomy (ESC) with postoperative helmet therapy.

METHODS

A retrospective review of three-dimensional photographs of 50 subjects treated with ESC with postoperative helmet therapy and 50 age-matched controls was performed. Images were collected preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively. Forehead convexity and temple concavity were quantified. Computed tomographic scans of subjects with and without sagittal synostosis were analyzed to assess the percentage of total intracranial volume (ICV) in the anterior cranial fossa before and after ESC with postoperative helmet therapy.

RESULTS

Forehead convexity in the ESC with postoperative helmet therapy group preoperatively (24.49 ± 3.16 m -1 ) was significantly greater than controls (22.48 ± 3.84 m -1 ; P = 0.005). Forehead convexity significantly decreased after ESC with postoperative helmet therapy (18.79 ± 2.43 m -1 ; P < 0.001) and did not differ from controls (19.67 ± 3.08 m -1 ; P = 0.115). The ESC group had more concave temples preoperatively (-10.27 ± 4.37 m -1 ) as compared with controls (-6.99 ± 3.55 m -1 ; P < 0.001). Temple concavity significantly decreased after ESC (-4.82 ± 3.17 m -1 ; P < 0.001) and did not differ from controls (-5.64 ± 3.27 m -1 ; P = 0.075). In the ESC group, the percentage ICV in the anterior cranial fossa decreased from 22.03% to 18.99% after surgery, whereas the anterior volume in controls was stable (17.74% to 16.81%).

CONCLUSIONS

The ESC group had significantly greater forehead convexity, temple concavity and anterior cranial fossa volume compared with controls. One year after ESC with postoperative helmet therapy, forehead convexity, temple concavity, and percentage ICV in the anterior fossa were comparable to controls.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Spring-Assisted Surgery for Treatment of Sagittal Craniosynostosis

ABSTRACT

Craniosynostosis (CSS), the premature fusion of calvarial sutures, most commonly involves the sagittal suture. Cranial vault remodeling (CVR) is a traditional method of CSS correction. Minimally invasive methods are becoming widely accepted, including spring-assisted surgery (SAS). The equipment required for SAS is minimal therefore adaptable to resource challenged health systems. This paper outlines the experience of SAS in Moldova.A retrospective study was performed for patients treated with SAS for sagittal CSS from 2011 to 2018 in Moldova. Perioperative data were recorded including age, length of surgery, blood loss, volume transfused and length of stay. Four patients had pre- and post-operative computed tomography (CT) scans which were used to calculate changes in cephalic index, normative cephalic index, and intracranial volume.Thirteen patients underwent SAS. Diagnoses were made clinically and confirmed with CT. Mean age at surgery was 4.0 months, and length of surgery 62.7 minutes. All but one patient received a blood transfusion, as is standard of practice in Moldova. The mean length of post-operative recovery in ICU was 30.9 hours. No complications required surgical revision. Springs were removed after 4 to 5 months. All patients had a subjective improvement in scaphocephaly. Based on the available CT scans, an increase in cephalic index (7.3%), normative cephalic index (11.8%), and intracranial volume (38.1%) was observed. One patient underwent SAS at 11 months and required cranioplasty for asymmetry at the time of spring removal.SAS is a safe and cost-effective method of CSS correction that can be utilized in countries with limited health system resources.

Assessment of the Outcome of Calvarial Vault Remodeling and Spring-Mediated Cranioplasty in the Correction of Isolated Sagittal Suture Synostosis

BACKGROUND

Sagittal synostosis is the commonest form of nonsyndromic isolated craniosynostosis. Calvarial vault remodeling (CVR) and spring-mediated cranioplasty (SMC) are the commonly used correction techniques.

AIM OF THE WORK

To study and compare clinical and radiographic outcomes of CVR and SMC in the correction of isolated sagittal suture synostosis.

METHODS

A prospective cohort with the patients were divided into group; I (SMC) and II (CVR), each 15 patients. They were observed to evaluate the outcome and detect complications.

RESULTS

Mean operative time was 59.2 minutes in SMC and 184 minutes in CVR. Mean intraoperative blood loss was 26 mL in SMC and 64.7 mL in CVR. Intraoperative complications in SMC were dural tear in 1 patient and superior sagittal sinus injury in another patient, while in CVR 2 patients with dural tears and a 3rd with superior sagittal sinus injury. Postoperative complications in SMC were exposed spring, gaped wound, and parietal eminence elevation, while in CVR 2 patients needed blood transfusion. The mean hospital stays was 1.4 days in SMC and 4.1 days in CVR. In SMC, the relative increase in cephalic index varied between 5.5% and 8.2%, while for CVR, it varied between 5.1% and 7.9%.

CONCLUSION

The SMC and CVR are safe procedures, with good long-term results and significant objective changes toward normalization of the skull morphology in isolated sagittal craniosynostosis. The SMC is less invasive and associated with reduced hospital stays, decreased blood loss, and can be performed at a younger age than CVR with a lower morbidity.