Anshit Goyal1,2, Victor M Lu1,3, Yagiz U Yolcu1,2, Mohamed Elminawy1,2, David J Daniels4. 1. Mayo Clinic Neuro-Informatics Laboratory, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 2. Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, USA. 3. Prince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 4. Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, USA. Daniels.David@mayo.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Surgery for craniosynostosis remains a crucial element in successful management. Intervention by both endoscopic and open approaches has been proven effective. Given the differences in timing and indications for these procedures, differences in perioperative outcomes have yet to be thoroughly compared between the two approaches. The aim of the systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the available evidence of perioperative outcomes between the two approaches in order to better influence the management paradigm of craniosynostosis. METHODS: We followed recommended PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. Seven electronic databases were searched to identify all potentially relevant studies published from inception to February 2018 which were then screened against a set of selection criteria. Data were extracted and analyzed using meta-analysis of proportions. RESULTS: Twelve studies satisfied all the selection criteria to be included, which described a pooled cohort involving 2064 craniosynostosis patients, with 965 (47%) and 1099 (53%) patients undergoing surgery by endoscopic and open approaches respectively. When compared to the open approach, it was found that the endoscopic approach conferred statistically significant reductions in blood loss (MD = 162.4 mL), operative time (MD = 112.38 min), length of stay (MD = 2.56 days), and rates of perioperative complications (OR = 0.58), reoperation (OR = 0.37) and transfusion (OR = 0.09), where all p < 0.001. CONCLUSION: Both endoscopic and open approaches for the surgical management of craniosynostosis are viable considerations. The endoscopic approach confers a significant reduction in operative and postoperative morbidity when compared to the open approach. Given that specific indications for either approach should be considered when managing a patient, the difference in perioperative outcomes remain an important element of this paradigm. Future studies will validate the findings of this study and consider long-term outcomes, which will all contribute to rigor of craniosynostosis management.
INTRODUCTION: Surgery for craniosynostosis remains a crucial element in successful management. Intervention by both endoscopic and open approaches has been proven effective. Given the differences in timing and indications for these procedures, differences in perioperative outcomes have yet to be thoroughly compared between the two approaches. The aim of the systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the available evidence of perioperative outcomes between the two approaches in order to better influence the management paradigm of craniosynostosis. METHODS: We followed recommended PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. Seven electronic databases were searched to identify all potentially relevant studies published from inception to February 2018 which were then screened against a set of selection criteria. Data were extracted and analyzed using meta-analysis of proportions. RESULTS: Twelve studies satisfied all the selection criteria to be included, which described a pooled cohort involving 2064 craniosynostosispatients, with 965 (47%) and 1099 (53%) patients undergoing surgery by endoscopic and open approaches respectively. When compared to the open approach, it was found that the endoscopic approach conferred statistically significant reductions in blood loss (MD = 162.4 mL), operative time (MD = 112.38 min), length of stay (MD = 2.56 days), and rates of perioperative complications (OR = 0.58), reoperation (OR = 0.37) and transfusion (OR = 0.09), where all p < 0.001. CONCLUSION: Both endoscopic and open approaches for the surgical management of craniosynostosis are viable considerations. The endoscopic approach confers a significant reduction in operative and postoperative morbidity when compared to the open approach. Given that specific indications for either approach should be considered when managing a patient, the difference in perioperative outcomes remain an important element of this paradigm. Future studies will validate the findings of this study and consider long-term outcomes, which will all contribute to rigor of craniosynostosis management.
Authors: Gregory J A Murad; Mark Clayman; M Brent Seagle; Sno White; Leigh Ann Perkins; David W Pincus Journal: Neurosurg Focus Date: 2005-12-15 Impact factor: 4.047
Authors: Christopher M Bonfield; Julia Sharma; D Douglas Cochrane; Ash Singhal; Paul Steinbok Journal: Childs Nerv Syst Date: 2015-09-08 Impact factor: 1.475
Authors: Douglas R Thompson; David Zurakowski; Charles M Haberkern; Paul A Stricker; Petra M Meier; Carolyn Bannister; Hubert Benzon; Wendy Binstock; Adrian Bosenberg; Alyssa Brzenski; Stefan Budac; Veronica Busso; Samantha Capehart; Franklin Chiao; Franklyn Cladis; Michael Collins; Jordan Cusick; Rachel Dabek; Nicholas Dalesio; Ricardo Falcon; Allison Fernandez; Patrick Fernandez; John Fiadjoe; Meera Gangadharan; Katherine Gentry; Chris Glover; Susan Goobie; Heike Gries; Allison Griffin; Cornelius Botha Groenewald; John Hajduk; Rebecca Hall; Jennifer Hansen; Mali Hetmaniuk; Vincent Hsieh; Henry Huang; Pablo Ingelmo; Iskra Ivanova; Ranu Jain; Jeffrey Koh; Courtney Kowalczyk-Derderian; Jane Kugler; Kristen Labovsky; José Luis Martinez; Razaz Mujallid; Bridget Muldowney; Kim-Phuong Nguyen; Thanh Nguyen; Olutoyin Olutuye; Codruta Soneru; Timothy Petersen; Kim Poteet-Schwartz; Srijaya Reddy; Russell Reid; Karene Ricketts; Daniel Rubens; Rochelle Skitt; Lisa Sohn; Susan Staudt; Wai Sung; Tariq Syed; Peter Szmuk; Brad Taicher; Lisa Tetreault; Rheana Watts; Karen Wong; Vanessa Young; Lillian Zamora Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Dennis C Nguyen; Kamlesh B Patel; Gary B Skolnick; Sybill D Naidoo; Andrew H Huang; Matthew D Smyth; Albert S Woo Journal: J Craniofac Surg Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 1.046
Authors: Ema Zubovic; Albert S Woo; Gary B Skolnick; Sybill D Naidoo; Matthew D Smyth; Kamlesh B Patel Journal: J Craniofac Surg Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 1.046
Authors: Minh-Bao Le; Kamlesh Patel; Gary Skolnick; Sybill Naidoo; Matthew Smyth; Alex Kane; Albert S Woo Journal: J Craniofac Surg Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 1.046
Authors: Sassan Keshavarzi; Melanie G Hayden; Sharona Ben-Haim; Hal S Meltzer; Steven R Cohen; Michael L Levy Journal: J Craniofac Surg Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 1.046
Authors: Hui Qing Lee; John M Hutson; Alison C Wray; Patrick A Lo; David K Chong; Anthony D Holmes; Andrew L Greensmith Journal: J Craniofac Surg Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 1.046
Authors: Rowland H Han; Dennis C Nguyen; Brent S Bruck; Gary B Skolnick; Chester K Yarbrough; Sybill D Naidoo; Kamlesh B Patel; Alex A Kane; Albert S Woo; Matthew D Smyth Journal: J Neurosurg Pediatr Date: 2015-11-20 Impact factor: 2.375