Literature DB >> 18216666

Spring-assisted cranioplasty vs pi-plasty for sagittal synostosis--a long term follow-up study.

Per Windh1, Charles Davis, Claire Sanger, Pelle Sahlin, Claes Lauritzen.   

Abstract

Spring-assisted cranioplasty (SAS) has been used for the treatment of selected cases of sagittal synostosis at our unit routinely since 1998. In order to assess the long-term outcomes of this procedure, we compared the clinical data and morbidity with the pi-plasty technique, our previous standard procedure for the treatment of such children. The first 20 consecutive patients who underwent SAS for isolated sagittal synostosis with complete records, and who were 3 years old at the time of this study, were included. Twenty patients with a pi-plasty performed in the period immediately preceding the spring group acted as a control group. Cephalograms (preoperative, 1-year and 3-year), clinical examination, medical record data, medical photography, and a questionnaire (spring-group only) were used to evaluate and compare these two groups. The mean age of the spring group was 3.5 months (2.5-5.5) and the pi-plasty group 7.1 months (4-15.5) of age at surgery. There were no deaths in either group. There was a higher rate of complications in the pi-plasty group. The skull morphology was similar preoperatively in both groups but slightly different at the 3-year follow-up. The mean cephalic index (CI) in the spring group was 72 at 1 year of age and 71 at 3 years of age, indicating a minor relapse. The pi-plasty group had a mean CI of 73 at 3 years of age. The length was the same in both groups however the pi-plasty group had a lower height (mean 2 mm) and wider biparietal distance (mean 5 mm). All parents of the spring group were highly satisfied with the aesthetic results achieved, would undergo the operation again, and would recommend it to others with scaphocephaly. It was concluded that the two groups of surgery resulted in a quite similar morphologic outcome. The pi-plasty group had a cephalic index marginally closer to the normal range at 3 years of age. The spring group was superior with respect to blood loss, transfusion requirements, operative time, ICU time, recovery time, and total hospital stay.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18216666     DOI: 10.1097/scs.0b013e31815c94c8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Craniofac Surg        ISSN: 1049-2275            Impact factor:   1.046


  13 in total

1.  Adaptation of the cranium to spring cranioplasty forces.

Authors:  Charles Davis; Per Windh; Claes G K Lauritzen
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 1.475

2.  Spring-assisted correction of sagittal suture synostosis.

Authors:  Marie-Lise C van Veelen; Irene M J Mathijssen
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2012-08-08       Impact factor: 1.475

Review 3.  Radiographic appearances of uncommon paediatric implants and devices.

Authors:  Arlen Urquia; Tom A Watson; Owen J Arthurs
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2015-05-30

4.  Safety of Open Cranial Vault Surgery for Single-Suture Craniosynostosis: A Case for the Multidisciplinary Team.

Authors:  Craig B Birgfeld; Lynette Dufton; Heather Naumann; Richard A Hopper; Joseph S Gruss; Charles M Haberkern; Matthew L Speltz
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 1.046

5.  Twenty-five-years follow-up results of our total cranial reshaping "bamboo-ware method".

Authors:  Hideo Nakajima; Yoshiaki Sakamoto; Ikkei Tamada
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2013-07-07       Impact factor: 1.475

6.  Predicting and comparing three corrective techniques for sagittal craniosynostosis.

Authors:  Connor Cross; Roman H Khonsari; Dawid Larysz; David Johnson; Lars Kölby; Mehran Moazen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-10-27       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Objective classification system for sagittal craniosynostosis based on suture segmentation.

Authors:  Xiaohua Qian; Hua Tan; Jian Zhang; Xiahai Zhuang; Leslie Branch; Chaire Sanger; Allison Thompson; Weiling Zhao; King Chuen Li; Lisa David; Xiaobo Zhou
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  A functional aesthetic approach to correcting the sequelae of sagittal synostosis.

Authors:  Eric H Hubli
Journal:  Semin Plast Surg       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 2.314

9.  Microscopic versus open approach to craniosynostosis: a long-term outcomes comparison.

Authors:  John F Teichgraeber; James E Baumgartner; Stephen L Viviano; Jaime Gateno; James J Xia
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 1.046

10.  Correction of nonsynostotic scaphocephaly without cranial osteotomy: spring expansion of the sagittal suture.

Authors:  Charles Davis; Agadha Wickremesekera; Martin R MacFarlane
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2008-10-07       Impact factor: 1.475

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.