Cranial Vault Growth in Multiple-Suture Nonsyndromic and Syndromic Craniosynostosis: A Postoperative Long-Term Anthropometric Follow-Up

Craniofacial morphology in Apert syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This meta-analysis aims to compare Apert syndrome (AS) patients with non-AS populations (not clinically or genetically diagnosed) on craniofacial cephalometric characteristics (CCC) to combine publicly available scientific information while also improving the validity of primary study findings. A comprehensive search was performed in the following databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, Medline, and Web of Science, an article published between 1st January 2000 to October 17th, 2021. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed to carry out this systematic review. We used the PECO system to classify people with AS based on whether or not they had distinctive CCC compared to the non-AS population. Following are some examples of how PECO has been used: People with AS are labeled P; clinical or genetic diagnosis of AS is labeled E; individuals without AS are labeled C; CCC of AS are labeled O. Using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality-Assessment-Scale, independent reviewers assessed the articles' methodological quality and extracted data. 13 studies were included in the systematic review. 8 out of 13 studies were score 7-8 in NOS scale, which indicated that most of the studies were medium to high qualities. Six case-control studies were analyzed for meta-analysis. Due to the wide range of variability in CCC, we were only able to include data from at least three previous studies. There was a statistically significant difference in N-S-PP (I2: 76.56%; P = 0.014; CI 1.27 to - 0.28) and Greater wing angle (I2: 79.07%; P = 0.008; CI 3.07-1.17) between AS and control subjects. Cleft palate, anterior open bite, crowding in the upper jaw, and hypodontia occurred more frequently among AS patients. Significant shortening of the mandibular width, height and length is the most reported feature in AS patients. CT scans can help patients with AS decide whether to pursue orthodontic treatment alone or to have their mouth surgically expanded. The role of well-informed orthodontic and maxillofacial practitioners is critical in preventing and rehabilitating oral health issues.

Power-Assisted Particulate Bone Grafting Effectively Prevents Osseous Defects After Cranial Vault Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Cranial vault reconstruction (CVR) is the gold standard in the operative treatment of craniosynostosis. Full thickness osseous defects (FTOD) of the calvaria have been observed in 5% to 15% patients after CVR, with higher rates cited in the fronto-orbital advancement (FOA) subset. Particulate bone graft (PBG) harvested manually has been shown to decrease FTOD after FOA from 24% to 5.5%. The authors used a modified technique using a powered craniotome, with the hypothesis that the technique would also improve outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of patients who underwent CVR for craniosynostosis between 2004 and 2014. Patient demographics, diagnosis, age, operative details, and postoperative care were reviewed in detail. Categorical, nonparametric variables were compared by Fisher exact tests.

RESULTS

A total of 135 patients met inclusion criteria. The most common diagnoses were metopic (n = 41), sagittal (n = 33), and unilateral coronal craniosynostosis (n = 31); 65% (n = 88) underwent FOA, 29% (n = 39) underwent single-stage total vault reconstruction, and 6% (n = 8) had a posterior vault reconstruction. CVR was performed without PBG in 95 patients and with PBG in 40 patients. Without PBG, FTOD were discovered on clinical examination in 18% of patients (n=17): 11 presented with subcentimeter defects, while 6 had larger defects requiring revision cranioplasty (6% operative revision rate). Among those receiving PBG, 1 patient presented a subcentimeter FTOD (2.5% FTOD incidence and 0% operative revision rate).

CONCLUSION

Particulate bone graft harvested with a powered device decreases the rate of FTOD and reoperation rate after CVR for craniosynostosis.

The Management of Nonsyndromic, Isolated Sagittal Synostosis

AIM

Isolated sagittal synostosis is the commonest form of craniosynostosis. The reasons for surgery are to normalize the head shape and to increase the cranial volume, thus reducing the risk of raised intracranial pressure and allowing for normal brain development. It has been suggested that sagittal synostosis may impair neuropsychological development. This systematic review appraised the literature on the management of sagittal synostosis.

METHODS

A literature search was performed with the assistance of a professional librarian. Studies selected had to satisfy the criteria set by PICO (patients, intervention, comparison, and outcome). Cranial index and neuropsychological outcome were used as outcome measures. MINORS was used to assess the methodological quality of the selected articles. A score of 75% was deemed to be of satisfactory quality, and the quality of the evidence from the selected studies was graded using the GRADE system.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-eight articles were initially identified. Only 6 articles fulfilled the PICO criteria and scored a minimum of 75% on MINORS. Four studies compared 1 technique to another with documented cranial indices. Two studies compared 1 group to another and assessed the neuropsychological development. According to GRADE, the quality of evidence was deemed to be very low.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review assessed cranial index and neuropsychological outcome following surgery for isolated, nonsyndromic sagittal synostosis. The quality of the evidence in the published literature was noted to be of very low quality. There is a need for better-designed, prospective studies to guide surgeons involved in management of sagittal synostosis.