Matthieu Vinchon1, Pierre Guerreschi2, Melodie-Anne Karnoub3, Alexis Wolber2. 1. Department of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Lille University Hospital, Lille, France. matthieu.vinchon@chru-lille.fr. 2. Department of Plastic Surgery, Lille University Hospital, Lille, France. 3. Department of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Lille University Hospital, Lille, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Morphological correction is one of the main aims of surgery for sagittal synostosis (SSO). Different surgical techniques have been developed; however, few studies have compared the different surgical protocols. The morphological outcome is poorly documented, because a consensual evaluation tool is lacking. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a prospective study of children operated for SSO in our institution. Children were operated whenever possible at 4 months for craniectomy; by default, children underwent cranioplasty at or after 9 months. The morphological outcome of all children was evaluated using traditional craniometry with head circumference (HC) and the cephalic index (CI), and with the Rotterdam scaphocephaly morphology score (RSMS), a total of semi-quantitative assessments of morphological hallmarks. RESULTS: Craniectomy was significantly associated with a shorter operation time and hospital stay, and a better impact on HC and CI measurements, compared with cranioplasty. The RSMS was markedly improved after surgery in both groups; however, we found no significant difference in improvement between the two groups. Although the transfusion rate and the prevalence of developmental delay were lower in the craniectomy group, and reoperations for calvarial lacunae or complex craniosynostosis occurred only this group, these differences were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support early surgery with craniectomy whenever possible; however, cranioplasty at a later age is a very acceptable by-default indication. In addition to classical craniometry, morphological evaluation using the RSMS or a similar quantitative scale appears highly desirable for future studies.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Morphological correction is one of the main aims of surgery for sagittal synostosis (SSO). Different surgical techniques have been developed; however, few studies have compared the different surgical protocols. The morphological outcome is poorly documented, because a consensual evaluation tool is lacking. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a prospective study of children operated for SSO in our institution. Children were operated whenever possible at 4 months for craniectomy; by default, children underwent cranioplasty at or after 9 months. The morphological outcome of all children was evaluated using traditional craniometry with head circumference (HC) and the cephalic index (CI), and with the Rotterdam scaphocephaly morphology score (RSMS), a total of semi-quantitative assessments of morphological hallmarks. RESULTS: Craniectomy was significantly associated with a shorter operation time and hospital stay, and a better impact on HC and CI measurements, compared with cranioplasty. The RSMS was markedly improved after surgery in both groups; however, we found no significant difference in improvement between the two groups. Although the transfusion rate and the prevalence of developmental delay were lower in the craniectomy group, and reoperations for calvarial lacunae or complex craniosynostosis occurred only this group, these differences were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support early surgery with craniectomy whenever possible; however, cranioplasty at a later age is a very acceptable by-default indication. In addition to classical craniometry, morphological evaluation using the RSMS or a similar quantitative scale appears highly desirable for future studies.
Authors: Dennis C Nguyen; Scott J Farber; Gary B Skolnick; Sybill D Naidoo; Matthew D Smyth; Alex A Kane; Kamlesh B Patel; Albert S Woo Journal: J Neurosurg Pediatr Date: 2017-08-25 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Marie-Lise C van Veelen; Nathalie Kamst; Carolina Touw; Katya Mauff; Sarah Versnel; Ruben Dammers; T H Rob de Jong; Vani Prasad; Irene M Mathijssen Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Matthieu Vinchon; Philippe Pellerin; Pierre Guerreschi; Marc Baroncini; Patrick Dhellemmes Journal: Childs Nerv Syst Date: 2012-08-08 Impact factor: 1.475
Authors: Brent R Collett; Kristen E Gray; Kathleen A Kapp-Simon; Craig Birgfeld; Michael Cunningham; Jenna Rudo-Stern; Danielle Ung; Lauren Buono; Matthew L Speltz Journal: J Craniofac Surg Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 1.046
Authors: Anup Patel; Jenny F Yang; Peter W Hashim; Roberto Travieso; Jordan Terner; Linda C Mayes; Paul Kanev; Charles Duncan; John Jane; John Jane; Ian Pollack; Joseph E Losee; David J Bridgett; John A Persing Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Peter W Hashim; Anup Patel; Jenny F Yang; Roberto Travieso; Jordan Terner; Joseph E Losee; Ian Pollack; John Jane; John Jane; Paul Kanev; Linda Mayes; Charles Duncan; David J Bridgett; John A Persing Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Hans Hendrik Karel Delye; Sebastian Arts; Wilfred Ary Borstlap; Laura Mirjam Blok; Jacques Jan Driessen; Jene Willem Meulstee; Thomas Jan Jaap Maal; Erik Jan van Lindert Journal: J Craniomaxillofac Surg Date: 2016-05-18 Impact factor: 2.078