Marie-Lise C van Veelen1, Irene M J Mathijssen. 1. Dutch Craniofacial Centre, Department of Neurosurgery, Erasmus MC, Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. m.l.c.vanveelen@erasmusmc.nl
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to describe the technique and advantages and limitations of spring-assisted cranioplasty for sagittal suture synostosis. METHODS: Preliminary data are presented of the first 41 patients treated with this technique at our institution. RESULTS: The cephalic index was 75 after surgery and dropped to 74 one year after surgery. Mean blood loss of both procedures combined was 54 ml. CONCLUSION: Spring-assisted cranioplasty requires only two small incisions and is at least as effective as other techniques with respect to the cephalic index. Blood loss, operative time, and complication rate are reduced. The most important disadvantage is the need to remove the springs in a second intervention. A second drawback is that the expansion of the spring is not controllable after placement. This can be partially intercepted by adjusting the spring (or the craniotomy) to the patient's specific features.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to describe the technique and advantages and limitations of spring-assisted cranioplasty for sagittal suture synostosis. METHODS: Preliminary data are presented of the first 41 patients treated with this technique at our institution. RESULTS: The cephalic index was 75 after surgery and dropped to 74 one year after surgery. Mean blood loss of both procedures combined was 54 ml. CONCLUSION: Spring-assisted cranioplasty requires only two small incisions and is at least as effective as other techniques with respect to the cephalic index. Blood loss, operative time, and complication rate are reduced. The most important disadvantage is the need to remove the springs in a second intervention. A second drawback is that the expansion of the spring is not controllable after placement. This can be partially intercepted by adjusting the spring (or the craniotomy) to the patient's specific features.
Authors: Claes G K Lauritzen; Charles Davis; Anna Ivarsson; Claire Sanger; Timothy D Hewitt Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Jeremy Pyle; Steven Glazier; Daniel Couture; Claire Sanger; Stan Gordon; Lisa David Journal: J Craniofac Surg Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 1.046
Authors: David F Jimenez; Constance M Barone; Maria E McGee; Cathy C Cartwright; C Lynette Baker Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Lisa R David; Christina M Plikaitis; Daniel Couture; Steven S Glazier; Louis C Argenta Journal: J Craniofac Surg Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 1.046
Authors: William X Z Liaw; William C H Parr; Tim S Peltz; Alex Varey; Jeremy Hunt; Mark Gianoutsos; Damian D Marucci; William Walsh Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2019-04-02
Authors: Abdullah Thabit; Mohamed Benmahdjoub; Marie-Lise C van Veelen; Wiro J Niessen; Eppo B Wolvius; Theo van Walsum Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2022-05-04 Impact factor: 3.421