Literature DB >> 26080168

Operative Management of Nonsyndromic Sagittal Synostosis: A Head-to-Head Meta-analysis of Outcomes Comparing 3 Techniques.

Patrick A Gerety1, Marten N Basta, John P Fischer, Jesse A Taylor.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The timing and surgical technique for the treatment of sagittal synostosis remain controversial. Calvarial vault remodeling (CVR), strip craniectomy (SC), and spring-mediated cranioplasty (SMC) are currently in use. We perform a meta-analysis of the literature to compare these 3 techniques.
METHODS: A literature search identified articles involving operative management of nonsyndromic sagittal synostosis. Comparison of 2 operative techniques was required, and methodology was assessed via the American Society of Plastic Surgeons' Levels of Evidence. Three techniques were considered: CVR, SC, and SMC. Meta-analysis was conducted for change in cephalic index (CI), reported as weighted mean difference (WMD). Pooled subgroup comparisons were performed for operative time, length of stay, blood loss, and cost.
RESULTS: Twelve studies providing level 2 or 3 evidence were included. All studies involved CVR (n = 187), 8 involved SC (n = 299), and 7 involved SMC (n = 158). Head-to-head comparison of change in CI demonstrated a greater, yet statistically insignificant change for CVR versus SMC, WMD = 0.94 (-0.23 to 2.11) (P = 0.12, I(2) = 55%). Calvarial vault remodeling showed a statistically greater change in CI versus SC, WMD = 1.47 (0.47-2.48) (P = 0.004, I(2) = 66%). Compared with SMC/SC, CVR had longer operative length (170 vs 97 minutes), higher blood loss (238 vs 47 mL), longer length of stay (5.1 vs 2.9 days), and higher costs ($35,280 vs $13,147), all with P < 0.0001.
CONCLUSIONS: This study, the first meta-analysis comparing 3 primary operations for correcting nonsyndromic sagittal synostosis, demonstrates no difference in CI for CVR versus SMC and a small but statistically greater improvement in CI favoring CVR over SC. Secondary outcomes favored SC/SMC procedures over CVR. However, long-term studies are still needed to adequately assess the risk-benefit ratios.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26080168     DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000001651

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


  5 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  Short- and Long-Term Outcomes by Procedure Type for Nonsagittal Single-Suture Craniosynostosis.

Authors:  Katelyn G Bennett; Geoffrey E Hespe; Christian J Vercler; Steven R Buchman
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2019 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 1.046

3.  Evaluating Surgical Decision-making in Nonsyndromic Sagittal Craniosynostosis Using a Digital 3D Model.

Authors:  Christopher D Hughes; Olivia Langa; Laura Nuzzi; Steven J Staffa; Mark Proctor; John G Meara; Ingrid M Ganske
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2021-05-21

4.  Optimizing Reconstruction in Craniosynostosis: Review of Nonsyndromic Patients Treated With a Novel Technique.

Authors:  Hayeem L Rudy; Sean Herman; Carrie S Stern; David A Staffenberg; Kamilah Dowling; James T Goodrich; Oren M Tepper
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2020 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.172

5.  Modification of the Melbourne Method for Total Calvarial Vault Remodeling.

Authors:  Christopher D Hughes; Kathryn V Isaac; Paul F Hwang; Ingrid Ganske; Mark R Proctor; John G Meara
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2018-07-09
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.