Benjamin C Wood1, Carlos S Mendoza, Albert K Oh, Emmarie Myers, Nabile Safdar, Marius G Linguraru, Gary F Rogers. 1. Washington, D.C. From the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Children's National Health System; the Division of Plastic Surgery, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences; Sheikh Zayed Institute for Pediatric Surgical Innovation, Children's National Health System; and the Departments of Radiology and Pediatrics, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, George Washington University.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The metopic suture is unlike other cranial sutures in that it normally closes in infancy. Consequently, the diagnosis of metopic synostosis depends primarily on a subjective assessment of cranial shape. The purpose of this study was to create a simple, reproducible radiographic method to quantify forehead shape and distinguish trigonocephaly from normal cranial shape variation. METHODS: Computed tomography scans were acquired for 92 control patients (mean age, 4.2 ± 3.3 months) and 18 patients (mean age, 6.2 ± 3.3 months) with a diagnosis of metopic synostosis. A statistical model of the normal cranial shape was constructed, and deformation fields were calculated for patients with metopic synostosis. Optimal and divergence (simplified) interfrontal angles (IFA) were defined based on the three points of maximum average deformation on the frontal bones and metopic suture, respectively. Statistical analysis was performed to assess the accuracy and reliability of the diagnostic procedure. RESULTS: The optimal interfrontal angle was found to be significantly different between the synostosis (116.5 ± 5.8 degrees; minimum, 106.8 degrees; maximum, 126.6 degrees) and control (136.7 ± 6.2 degrees; minimum, 123.8 degrees; maximum, 169.3 degrees) groups (p < 0.001). Divergence interfrontal angles were also significantly different between groups. Accuracy, in terms of available clinical diagnosis, for the optimal and divergent angles, was 0.981 and 0.954, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Cranial shape analysis provides an objective and extremely accurate measure by which to diagnose abnormal interfrontal narrowing, the hallmark of metopic synostosis. The simple planar angle measurement proposed is reproducible and accurate, and can eliminate diagnostic subjectivity in this disorder. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic, IV.
BACKGROUND: The metopic suture is unlike other cranial sutures in that it normally closes in infancy. Consequently, the diagnosis of metopic synostosis depends primarily on a subjective assessment of cranial shape. The purpose of this study was to create a simple, reproducible radiographic method to quantify forehead shape and distinguish trigonocephaly from normal cranial shape variation. METHODS: Computed tomography scans were acquired for 92 control patients (mean age, 4.2 ± 3.3 months) and 18 patients (mean age, 6.2 ± 3.3 months) with a diagnosis of metopic synostosis. A statistical model of the normal cranial shape was constructed, and deformation fields were calculated for patients with metopic synostosis. Optimal and divergence (simplified) interfrontal angles (IFA) were defined based on the three points of maximum average deformation on the frontal bones and metopic suture, respectively. Statistical analysis was performed to assess the accuracy and reliability of the diagnostic procedure. RESULTS: The optimal interfrontal angle was found to be significantly different between the synostosis (116.5 ± 5.8 degrees; minimum, 106.8 degrees; maximum, 126.6 degrees) and control (136.7 ± 6.2 degrees; minimum, 123.8 degrees; maximum, 169.3 degrees) groups (p < 0.001). Divergence interfrontal angles were also significantly different between groups. Accuracy, in terms of available clinical diagnosis, for the optimal and divergent angles, was 0.981 and 0.954, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Cranial shape analysis provides an objective and extremely accurate measure by which to diagnose abnormal interfrontal narrowing, the hallmark of metopic synostosis. The simple planar angle measurement proposed is reproducible and accurate, and can eliminate diagnostic subjectivity in this disorder. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic, IV.
Authors: Antonio R Porras; Beatriz Paniagua; Andinet Enquobahrie; Scott Ensel; Hina Shah; Robert Keating; Gary F Rogers; Marius George Linguraru Journal: Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv Date: 2017-09-04
Authors: Monica Manrique; Esperanza Mantilla-Rivas; Antonio R Porras Perez; Justin R Bryant; Md Sohel Rana; Liyun Tu; Robert F Keating; Albert K Oh; Marius G Linguraru; Gary F Rogers Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 5.169
Authors: Esperanza Mantilla-Rivas; Liyun Tu; Agnes Goldrich; Monica Manrique; Antonio R Porras; Robert F Keating; Albert K Oh; Marius George Linguraru; Gary F Rogers Journal: J Craniofac Surg Date: 2020 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.046
Authors: Antonio R Porras; Beatriz Paniagua; Scott Ensel; Robert Keating; Gary F Rogers; Andinet Enquobahrie; Marius George Linguraru Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Antonio Reyes PorrasPerez; Robert Keating; Janice Lee; Marius George Linguraru Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Riddhish Bhalodia; Lucas A Dvoracek; Ali M Ayyash; Ladislav Kavan; Ross Whitaker; Jesse A Goldstein Journal: J Craniofac Surg Date: 2020 May/Jun Impact factor: 1.172