A comparison of endoscopic strip craniectomy and pi craniectomy for treatment of sagittal craniosynostosis

Endoscopic surgery for craniosynostosis: A systematic review and single-arm meta analysis

BACKGROUND

Craniosynostosis, a developmental craniofacial anomaly, can impair brain development and cause abnormal skull shape due to premature closure of one or more cranial sutures. Traditional surgical treatments have evolved from open operations to minimally invasive endoscopic techniques. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the endoscopic approach in craniosynostosis correction.

METHODS

Adhering to Cochrane Group standards and the PRISMA framework, this review utilized databases like PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, focusing on clinical and surgical outcomes of endoscopic craniosynostosis operations up to December 2023. Inclusion criteria emphasized studies with at least five patients undergoing endoscopic procedures, while exclusion criteria involved non-English papers, incomplete texts, and overlapping data. Statistical analysis used R software with various packages, and methodological bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I framework.

RESULTS

The review included 30 studies (4 prospective, 26 retrospective) with 2561 patients. The median age at operation was 3.20 months. Findings showed a mean operative time of 68.06 min, median hospital stay of 1.28 days, and mean blood loss of 29.89 ml. Blood transfusion was required in 9.97% of cases. Helmet therapy post-operation was common, with a median duration of 9 months. The rate of postoperative complications was 1.86%, and the reoperation rate was 3.07%. No procedure-related mortality was observed. The study noted substantial variations in the handling of craniosynostosis and a lack of consensus on the optimal timing and surgical approach.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic techniques for craniosynostosis repair demonstrate safety and effectiveness, characterized by low complication risks and favorable surgical outcomes. However, due to the limitations of observational studies and inherent heterogeneity, further comprehensive and controlled trials are needed to validate these findings and understand the long-term outcomes of the endoscopic approach.

Sagittal Craniosynostosis: Treatment and Outcomes According to Age at Intervention

The purpose of this study is to describe the treatment strategies and outcomes of nonsyndromic single-suture sagittal craniosynostosis based on the patient's age at intervention. Studies from MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched for patients with nonsyndromic single-suture sagittal craniosynostosis. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies with follow-up of at least 12 months, minimum of 25 patients per cohort, and first-time surgical intervention. The risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of intervention tool [Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I)] was applied. A total of 49 manuscripts with 3316 patients met criteria. Articles were categorized based on age at intervention; 0 to 6, older than 6 to 12, and older than 12 months. Fifteen of the manuscripts described interventions in more than 1 age group. From the 49 articles, 39 (n=2141) included patients 0 to 6 months old, 15 (n=669) discussed patients older than 6 to 12 months old, and 9 (n=506) evaluated patients older than 12 months old. Follow-up ranged from 12 to 144 months. Over 8 types of open surgical techniques were identified and 5 different minimally invasive procedures were described. Minimally invasive procedures were exclusively seen in the youngest patient cohort, while open cranial vault reconstructions were often seen in the 2 older cohorts. Endoscopic surgery and open conservative procedures are indicated for younger patients, while complex open cranial vault reconstructions are common in older patients. However, there is no consensus on one approach over the other. Even with the analysis of this review, we cannot factor a strong conclusion on a specific technique.

Is Postoperative Helmet Molding Therapy Necessary for Craniectomy for Sagittal Suture Synostosis?

Endoscopic strip craniectomy followed by postoperative remodeling helmet therapy for scaphocephaly is widely accepted, but the requirement of several helmets might burden patients or their families. This study examined whether craniectomy via a bicoronal approach without molding helmet therapy is worth considering. The authors retrospectively reviewed patients with nonsyndromic sagittal suture synostosis who underwent the modified Renier H technique between 2016 and 2021. We collected data on preoperative and postoperative cephalic index (CI), operative time, estimated blood loss, and blood transfusion rates. The authors also examined all related literature in English describing endoscopic craniectomy with postoperative helmet molding therapy for sagittal suture craniosynostosis. Among 17 patients, the average operative time was 92.2±15.6 minutes, the mean estimated blood loss was 35.8±22.4 mL, and a blood transfusion was needed for 9 patients (52.9%). The mean preoperative and postoperative CIs were 69.1±2.6 and 78.4±2.2, respectively. A comparison of the literature review with the authors' results showed that their procedures required a slightly longer operative time and a higher frequency of blood transfusions. There are no significant differences in blood loss or preoperative and postoperative CIs reported in the literature. The open procedure required a higher operative time than endoscopic suturectomy. However, dealing with bleeding is more challenging with endoscopic suturectomy. The cost of the helmets and the duration patients have to wear them, which might be burdensome for the patients or their families when determining the optimal minimally invasive treatment, should also be considered.

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.

Endoscopic treatment of sagittal suture synostosis - a critical analysis of current management strategies

While many centers nowadays offer minimally invasive techniques for the treatment of single suture synostosis, surgical techniques and patient management vary significantly. We provide an overview of how scaphocephaly treated with endoscopic techniques is managed in the reported series and analyze the crucial steps that need to be dealt with during the management process. We performed a review of the published literature including all articles that examined sagittal-suture synostosis treated with endoscopic techniques as part of single- or multicenter studies. Fourteen studies reporting results of 885 patients were included. We identified 5 key steps in the management of patients. A total of 188 patients were female and 537 male (sex was only specified in 10 articles, for 725 included patients, respectively). Median age at surgery was between 2.6 and 3.9 months with a total range from 1.5 to 7.0 months. Preoperative diagnostics included clinical and ophthalmologic examinations as well as neuropsychological and genetic consultations if needed. In 5 publications, a CT scan was routinely performed. Several groups used anthropometric measurements, mostly the cephalic index. All groups analyzed equally recommended to perform endoscopically assisted craniosynostosis surgery with postoperative helmet therapy in children < 3 months of age, at least for non-syndromic cases. There exist significant variations in surgical techniques and patient management for children treated endoscopically for single suture sagittal synostosis. This heterogeneity constitutes a major problem in terms of comparability between different strategies.

Superior Long-term Appearance of Strip Craniectomy Compared with Cranial Vault Reconstruction in Metopic Craniosynostosis

Background:

Strip craniectomy with orthotic helmet therapy (SCOT) is an increasingly supported treatment for metopic craniosynostosis, although the long-term efficacy of deformity correction remains poorly defined. We compared the longterm outcomes of SCOT versus open cranial vault reconstruction (OCVR).

Methods:

Patients who underwent OCVR or SCOT for isolated metopic synostosis with at least 3 years of follow-up were identified at our institution. Anthropometric measurements were used to assess baseline severity and postoperative skull morphology. Independent laypersons and craniofacial surgeons rated the appearance of each patient’s 3D photographs, compared to normal controls.

Results:

Thirty-five patients were included (15 SCOT and 20 OCVR), with similar follow-up between groups (SCOT 7.9 ± 3.2 years, OCVR 9.2 ± 4.1 years). Baseline severity and postoperative anthropometric measurements were equivalent. Independent adolescent raters reported that the forehead, eye, and overall appearance of SCOT patients was better than OCVR patients (P < 0.05, all comparisons). Craniofacial surgeons assigned Whitaker class I to a greater proportion of SCOT patients with moderate-to-severe synostosis (72.2 ± 5.6%) compared with OCVR patients with the same severity (33.3 ± 9.2%, P = 0.02). Parents of children who underwent SCOT reported equivalent satisfaction with the results of surgery (100% versus 95%, P > 0.99), and were no more likely to report bullying (7% versus 15%, P = 0.82).

Conclusions:

SCOT was associated with superior long-term appearance and perioperative outcomes compared with OCVR. These findings suggest that SCOT should be the treatment of choice for patients with a timely diagnosis of metopic craniosynostosis.

Spring-mediated cranioplasty versus endoscopic strip craniectomy for sagittal craniosynostosis

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic strip craniectomy (ESC) and spring-mediated cranioplasty (SMC) are two minimally invasive techniques for treating sagittal craniosynostosis in early infancy. Data comparing the perioperative outcomes of these two techniques are sparse. Here, the authors hypothesized that outcomes would be similar between patients undergoing SMC and those undergoing ESC and conducted a study using the multicenter Pediatric Craniofacial Surgery Perioperative Registry (PCSPR).

METHODS

The PCSPR was queried for infants under the age of 6 months who had undergone SMC or ESC for sagittal synostosis. SMC patients were propensity score matched 1:2 with ESC patients on age and weight. Primary outcomes were transfusion-free hospital course, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, ICU length of stay (LOS), and hospital length of stay (HLOS). The authors also obtained data points regarding spring removal. Comparisons of outcomes between matched groups were performed with multivariable regression models.

RESULTS

The query returned data from 676 infants who had undergone procedures from June 2012 through September 2019, comprising 580 ESC infants from 32 centers and 96 SMC infants from 5 centers. Ninety-six SMC patients were matched to 192 ESC patients. There was no difference in transfusion-free hospital course between the two groups (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.78, 95% CI 0.45-1.35). SMC patients were more likely to be admitted to the ICU (aOR 7.50, 95% CI 3.75-14.99) and had longer ICU LOSs (incident rate ratio [IRR] 1.42, 95% CI 1.37-1.48) and HLOSs (IRR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17-1.39).

CONCLUSIONS

In this multicenter study of ESC and SMC, the authors found similar transfusion-free hospital courses; however, SMC infants had longer ICU LOSs and HLOSs. A trial comparing longer-term outcomes in SMC versus ESC would further define the roles of these two approaches in the management of sagittal craniosynostosis.

Morphological and surgical results in sagittal synostosis: early craniectomy versus later cranioplasty

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Morphological correction is one of the main aims of surgery for sagittal synostosis (SSO). Different surgical techniques have been developed; however, few studies have compared the different surgical protocols. The morphological outcome is poorly documented, because a consensual evaluation tool is lacking.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a prospective study of children operated for SSO in our institution. Children were operated whenever possible at 4 months for craniectomy; by default, children underwent cranioplasty at or after 9 months. The morphological outcome of all children was evaluated using traditional craniometry with head circumference (HC) and the cephalic index (CI), and with the Rotterdam scaphocephaly morphology score (RSMS), a total of semi-quantitative assessments of morphological hallmarks.

RESULTS

Craniectomy was significantly associated with a shorter operation time and hospital stay, and a better impact on HC and CI measurements, compared with cranioplasty. The RSMS was markedly improved after surgery in both groups; however, we found no significant difference in improvement between the two groups. Although the transfusion rate and the prevalence of developmental delay were lower in the craniectomy group, and reoperations for calvarial lacunae or complex craniosynostosis occurred only this group, these differences were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results support early surgery with craniectomy whenever possible; however, cranioplasty at a later age is a very acceptable by-default indication. In addition to classical craniometry, morphological evaluation using the RSMS or a similar quantitative scale appears highly desirable for future studies.

Using Sensitivity Analysis to Develop a Validated Computational Model of Post-operative Calvarial Growth in Sagittal Craniosynostosis

Craniosynostosis is the premature fusion of one or more sutures across the calvaria, resulting in morphological and health complications that require invasive corrective surgery. Finite element (FE) method is a powerful tool that can aid with preoperative planning and post-operative predictions of craniosynostosis outcomes. However, input factors can influence the prediction of skull growth and the pressure on the growing brain using this approach. Therefore, the aim of this study was to carry out a series of sensitivity studies to understand the effect of various input parameters on predicting the skull morphology of a sagittal synostosis patient post-operatively. Preoperative CT images of a 4-month old patient were used to develop a 3D model of the skull, in which calvarial bones, sutures, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and brain were segmented. Calvarial reconstructive surgery was virtually modeled and two intracranial content scenarios labeled “CSF present” and “CSF absent,” were then developed. FE method was used to predict the calvarial morphology up to 76 months of age with intracranial volume-bone contact parameters being established across the models. Sensitivity tests with regards to the choice of material properties, methods of simulating bone formation and the rate of bone formation across the sutures were undertaken. Results were compared to the in vivo data from the same patient. Sensitivity tests to the choice of various material properties highlighted that the defined elastic modulus for the craniotomies appears to have the greatest influence on the predicted overall skull morphology. The bone formation modeling approach across the sutures/craniotomies had a considerable impact on the level of contact pressure across the brain with minimum impact on the overall predicated morphology of the skull. Including the effect of CSF (based on the approach adopted here) displayed only a slight reduction in brain pressure outcomes. The sensitivity tests performed in this study set the foundation for future comparative studies using FE method to compare outcomes of different reconstruction techniques for the management of craniosynostosis.

Quantitative and qualitative comparison of morphometric outcomes after endoscopic and conventional correction of sagittal and metopic craniosynostosis versus control groups

OBJECTIVE

Surgical correction for sagittal and metopic craniosynostosis (SCS and MCS) aims to alter the abnormal cranial shape to resemble that of the normal population. The achieved correction can be assessed by morphometric parameters. The purpose of the presented study was to compare craniometric parameters of control groups to those same parameters after endoscopic and conventional (open) correction.

METHODS

The authors identified 4 groups of children undergoing surgical treatment for either SCS or MCS, with either endoscopic (SCS, n = 17; MCS, n = 16) or conventional (SCS, n = 29; MCS, n = 18) correction. In addition, normal control groups of nonaffected children who were 6 (n = 30) and 24 (n = 18) months old were evaluated. For all groups, several craniometric indices calculated from 3D photographs were compared for quantitative analysis. For qualitative comparison, averages of all 3D photographs were generated for all groups and superimposed to visualize relative changes.

RESULTS

For children with SCS, the cephalic index and coronal circumference index significantly differed preoperatively from those of the 6-month normal controls. The respective postoperative values were similar to those of the 24-month normal controls after both endoscopic and conventional correction. Similarly, for children with MCS, indices for circumference and diagonal dimension that were significantly different preoperatively became nonsignificantly different from those of 24-month normal controls after both endoscopic and conventional correction. The qualitative evaluation of superimposed average 3D head shapes confirmed changes toward normal controls after both treatment modalities for SCS and MCS. However, in SCS, the volume gain, especially in the biparietal area, was more noticeable after endoscopic correction, while in MCS, relative volume gain of the bilateral forehead was more pronounced after conventional correction. The average 3D head shapes matched more homogeneously with the average of normal controls after endoscopic correction for SCS and after conventional correction for MCS.

CONCLUSIONS

This quantitative analysis confirms that the performed surgical techniques of endoscopic and conventional correction of SCS and MCS alter the head shape toward those of normal controls. However, in a qualitative evaluation, the average head shape after endoscopic technique for SCS and conventional correction for MCS appears to be closer to that of normal controls than after the alternative technique. This study reports on morphometric outcomes after craniosynostosis correction. Only an assessment of the whole multiplicity of outcome parameters based on multicenter data acquisition will allow conclusions of superiority of one surgical technique.

A Comparative Analysis of the Sonopet Ultrasonic Bone Aspirator to Traditional Instrumentation for Endoscopic Suturectomy for Craniosynostosis

OBJECTIVE

The goal of endoscopic treatment for craniosynostosis is to remove the fused suture and achieve calvarial remodeling with external orthosis. To reduce the need for secondary surgery and to minimize blood loss, instruments that maximize bone removal while minimizing blood loss and risk of dural injury are evolving. The authors therefore assess the safety and efficacy of the Sonopet Ultrasonic Bone Aspirator (UBA) (Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI) for endoscopic suturectomy compared to traditional instrumentation at our institution.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of consecutive endoscopic suturectomies performed from 2011 to 2019 at Weill Cornell Medical Center was conducted, including demographics, cephalic index, surgical indications, operative time, cosmetic and functional results, complications, estimated blood loss (EBL), re-operation rate, length of stay, and length of helmet therapy. These variables were then compared between the Sonopet and non-Sonopet cohorts.

RESULTS

Of the 60 patients who underwent endoscopic suturectomy, 16 cases (26.7%) utilized the Sonopet. Mean operative time was 2.8 ± 0.4 hours in the Sonopet group, compared to 3.2 ± 1.2 hours (P = 0.05) without the Sonopet. EBL was 17.8 ± 23.9 cc versus 34.7 ± 75.5 cc (P = 0.20) with versus without the Sonopet respectively. Length of stay and duration of helmet therapy were similar in both groups, ranging from 1 to 3 days (P = 0.68) and 7.25 to 12 months (P = 0.30) respectively. There were no reoperations in the Sonopet group with a mean follow up of 9.18 months. There were 3 reoperations in the non-Sonopet group with a mean follow up of 11.3 months. Among the cases utilizing the Sonopet, 13 (81%) were metopic and three (19%) were coronal synostoses. Of the non-Sonopet cases, 27 (61%) were sagittal, 8 (18%) were metopic, 7 (16%) were coronal, and 2 (5%) were lambdoid synostoses.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the Sonopet resulted in a mean decrease in operative time at our institution (P = 0.18). Lower EBL and reoperation rates with comparable LOS and helmet therapy duration were also seen. This modality should be considered a safe and effective adjunct in appropriate endoscopic craniosynostosis cases.