Correction of Metopic Craniosynostosis Using Limited Incision Strip Craniectomy Versus Open Fronto-Orbital Reconstruction: An Assessment of Aesthetic Outcomes

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.

Machine Learning in Metopic Craniosynostosis: Does Phenotypic Severity Predict Long-Term Esthetic Outcome?

BACKGROUND

There have been few longitudinal studies assessing the effect of preoperative phenotypic severity on long-term esthetic outcomes in metopic craniosynostosis. This study evaluates the relationship between metopic severity and long-term esthetic outcomes using interfrontal angle (IFA) and CranioRate, a novel metopic synostosis severity measure.

METHODS

Patients with metopic craniosynostosis who underwent bifrontal orbital advancement and remodeling between 2012 and 2017 were reviewed. Preoperative computed tomography head scans were analyzed for IFA and CranioRate, a machine learning algorithm which generates quantitative severity ratings including metopic severity score (MSS) and cranial morphology deviation (CMD). Long-term esthetic outcomes were assessed by craniofacial surgeons using blinded 3-rater esthetic grading of clinical photos. Raters assessed Whitaker score and the presence of temporal hollowing, lateral orbital retrusion, frontal bone irregularities and/or "any visible irregularities."

RESULTS

Preoperative scans were performed at a mean age of 7.7±3.4 months, with average MSS of 6/10, CMD of 200/300, and IFA of 116.8±13.8 degrees. Patients underwent bifrontal orbital advancement and remodeling at mean 9.9±3.1 months. The average time from operation to esthetic assessment was 5.4±1.0 years. Pearson correlation revealed a significant negative correlation between MSS and age at computed tomography ( r =-0.451, P =0.004) and IFA ( r =-0.371, P =0.034) and between IFA and age at surgery ( r =-0.383, P =0.018). In multinomial logistic regression, preoperative MSS was the only independent predictor of visible irregularities (odds ratio=2.18, B =0.780, P =0.024) and preoperative IFA alone significantly predicted Whitaker score, with more acute IFA predicting worse Whitaker score (odds ratio=0.928, B =-0.074, P =0.928).

CONCLUSIONS

More severe preoperative phenotypes of metopic craniosynostosis were associated with worse esthetic dysmorphology. Objective measures of preoperative metopic severity predicted long-term esthetic outcomes.

Impact of age at endoscopic metopic synostosis repair on anthropometric outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic strip craniectomy for metopic craniosynostosis relies on rapid growth and postoperative helmeting for correction. Endoscopic repair is generally performed before patients reach 4 months of age, and outcomes in older patients have yet to be quantified. Here, the authors examined a cohort of patients treated with endoscopic repair before or after 4 months of age to determine aesthetic outcomes of delayed repairs.

METHODS

Data from eligible patients were retrospectively assessed and aggregated in a dedicated metopic synostosis database. Inclusion criteria were radiographically confirmed metopic synostosis and endoscopic treatment. Patients were dichotomized into two groups: those younger than 4 months and those 4 months or older at the time of repair. The frontal width and interfrontal divergence angle (IFDA) were measured on reconstructed CT images. These measurements, alongside operative time, estimated blood loss, and transfusion rates, were compared between groups using the Student t-test or chi-square test.

RESULTS

The study population comprised 28 patients treated before 4 months of age and 8 patients treated at 4-6 months of age. Patient sex and perioperative complications did not differ by age group. Older age at repair was not significantly associated with 1-year postoperative IFDA (140° ± 4.2° vs 142° ± 5.0°, p = 0.28) or frontal width (84 ± 5.2 vs 83 ± 4.4 mm, p = 0.47).

CONCLUSIONS

One-year postoperative IFDA and frontal width do not differ significantly between patients treated before and after 4 months of age. Further study with longer follow-up is necessary to confirm the longevity of these results at skeletal maturity.