Katya Rozovsky1, Kristin Udjus2, Nagwa Wilson2, Nicholas James Barrowman3, Natalia Simanovsky4, Elka Miller2. 1. Department of Medical Imaging, and Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel katro70@yahoo.com. 2. Department of Medical Imaging, and. 3. Research Institute, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; and. 4. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Radiography, typically the first-line imaging study for diagnosis of craniosynostosis, exposes infants to ionizing radiation. We aimed to compare the accuracy of cranial ultrasound (CUS) with radiography for the diagnosis or exclusion of craniosynostosis. METHODS: Children aged 0 to 12 months who were assessed for craniosynostosis during 2011-2013 by using 4-view skull radiography and CUS of the sagittal, coronal, lambdoid, and metopic sutures were included in this prospective study. Institutional review board approval and parental informed consent were obtained. CUS and radiography were interpreted independently and blindly by 2 pediatric radiologists; conflicts were resolved in consensus. Sutures were characterized as closed, normal, or indeterminate. Correlation between CUS and radiography and interreader agreement were examined for each suture. RESULTS: A total of 126 children (82 boys, 64.5%) ages 8 to 343 days were included. All sutures were normal on CUS and radiography in 115 patients (93.7%); craniosynostosis of 1 suture was detected in 8 (6.3%, 5 sagittal, 2 metopic, 1 coronal). In 3 cases the metopic suture was closed (n = 2) or indeterminate on CUS (n = 1) but normally closed on radiography. CUS sensitivity was 100%, specificity 98% (95% confidence interval 94%-100%). Reader agreement was 100% for sagittal, coronal, and lambdoid sutures (κ = 0.80); after consensus, disagreement remained on 3 metopic sutures. CONCLUSIONS: In this series, CUS could be safely used as a first-line imaging tool in the investigation of craniosynostosis, reducing the need for radiographs in young children. Additional assessment may be required for accurate assessment of the metopic suture.
BACKGROUND: Radiography, typically the first-line imaging study for diagnosis of craniosynostosis, exposes infants to ionizing radiation. We aimed to compare the accuracy of cranial ultrasound (CUS) with radiography for the diagnosis or exclusion of craniosynostosis. METHODS:Children aged 0 to 12 months who were assessed for craniosynostosis during 2011-2013 by using 4-view skull radiography and CUS of the sagittal, coronal, lambdoid, and metopic sutures were included in this prospective study. Institutional review board approval and parental informed consent were obtained. CUS and radiography were interpreted independently and blindly by 2 pediatric radiologists; conflicts were resolved in consensus. Sutures were characterized as closed, normal, or indeterminate. Correlation between CUS and radiography and interreader agreement were examined for each suture. RESULTS: A total of 126 children (82 boys, 64.5%) ages 8 to 343 days were included. All sutures were normal on CUS and radiography in 115 patients (93.7%); craniosynostosis of 1 suture was detected in 8 (6.3%, 5 sagittal, 2 metopic, 1 coronal). In 3 cases the metopic suture was closed (n = 2) or indeterminate on CUS (n = 1) but normally closed on radiography. CUS sensitivity was 100%, specificity 98% (95% confidence interval 94%-100%). Reader agreement was 100% for sagittal, coronal, and lambdoid sutures (κ = 0.80); after consensus, disagreement remained on 3 metopic sutures. CONCLUSIONS: In this series, CUS could be safely used as a first-line imaging tool in the investigation of craniosynostosis, reducing the need for radiographs in young children. Additional assessment may be required for accurate assessment of the metopic suture.
Authors: L Pogliani; G V Zuccotti; M Furlanetto; V Giudici; A Erbetta; L Chiapparini; L Valentini Journal: Childs Nerv Syst Date: 2017-06-03 Impact factor: 1.475
Authors: Guido de Jong; Elmar Bijlsma; Jene Meulstee; Myrte Wennen; Erik van Lindert; Thomas Maal; René Aquarius; Hans Delye Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-09-18 Impact factor: 4.379