Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of 2 Sagittal Craniosynostosis Repair Techniques: Spring-Assisted Surgery Versus Endoscope-Assisted Craniectomy With Helmet Molding Therapy.
Skolnick, Gary B; Yu, Jenny L; Patel, Kamlesh B; David, Lisa R; Couture, Daniel E; Smyth, Matthew D; Woo, Albert S.
Affiliation
  • Skolnick GB; Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Institute, 12275Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
  • Yu JL; Division of Plastic Surgery, 12353University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA.
  • Patel KB; Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Institute, 12275Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
  • David LR; Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 12280Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
  • Couture DE; Department of Neurosurgery, 528756Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
  • Smyth MD; Department of Neurosurgery, 12275Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
  • Woo AS; Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 12321The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Cleft Palate Craniofac J ; 58(6): 678-686, 2021 06.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33094638
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

This study compares anthropometric outcomes of 2 sagittal synostosis repair techniques spring-assisted surgery and endoscope-assisted craniectomy with molding helmet therapy.

METHODS:

Patients undergoing spring-assisted surgery (n = 27) or endoscope-assisted craniectomy with helmet therapy (n = 40) at separate institutions were retrospectively reviewed. Pre- and 1-year postoperative computed tomography (CT) or laser scans were analyzed for traditional cranial index (CI), adjusted cranial index (aCI), and cranial vault volume (CVV). Nine patient-matched scans were analyzed for measurement consistency.

RESULTS:

The spring-assisted group was older at both time points (P < .050) and spring-assisted group CVV was larger preoperatively and postoperatively (P < .01). However, the change in CVV did not differ between the groups (P = .210). There was no difference in preoperative CI (helmet vs spring 70.1 vs 71.2, P = .368) between the groups. Postoperatively, helmet group CI (77.0 vs 74.3, P = .008) was greater. The helmet group also demonstrated a greater increase in CI (6.9 vs 3.1, P < .001). The proportion of patients achieving CI of 75 or greater was not significantly different between the groups (helmet vs spring CI, 65% vs 52%, P = .370). There was no detectable bias in CI between matched CT and laser scans. Differences were identified between scan types in aCI and CVV measurements; subsequent analyses used corrected CVV and aCI measures for laser scan measures.

CONCLUSIONS:

Both techniques had equivalent proportions of patients achieving normal CI, comparable effects on cranial volume, and similar operative characteristics. The study suggests that there may be greater improvement in CI in the helmet group. However, further research should be performed.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Craniosynostoses Type of study: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Limits: Humans / Infant Language: En Journal: Cleft Palate Craniofac J Journal subject: ODONTOLOGIA Year: 2021 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Estados Unidos

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Craniosynostoses Type of study: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Limits: Humans / Infant Language: En Journal: Cleft Palate Craniofac J Journal subject: ODONTOLOGIA Year: 2021 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Estados Unidos