Comparison of 2 Sagittal Craniosynostosis Repair Techniques: Spring-Assisted Surgery Versus Endoscope-Assisted Craniectomy With Helmet Molding Therapy

Long-term results of minimally invasive strip craniectomy without helmet therapy for scaphocephaly - a single-centre experience

Scaphocephaly is the most common type of craniosynostosis and various surgical techniques are used for treatment. Due to late postoperative changes of the head shape, long-term outcome data is important for evaluating any new surgical technique. At our institution, minimally invasive strip craniectomy without regular helmet therapy is the standard treatment in scaphocephalic patients. Between October 2021 and February 2023, we retrospectively examined the skull shape of patients who underwent minimally invasive strip craniectomy for scaphocephaly using a 3D surface scan technique. The cephalic index (CI), the need for helmet therapy and additional cosmetic outcome parameters were investigated. We included 70 patients (72.5% male). The mean follow-up time was 46 (10-125) months and the mean CI was 75.7 (66.7-85.2). In 58 patients, the final cosmetic result was rated as "excellent/good" (mean CI: 76.3; 70.4-85.0), in 11 as "intermediate" (mean CI: 73.3; 66.7-77.6), and in one case as "unsatisfactory" (CI 69.3). The presence of a suboccipital protrusion was associated with a "less than good" outcome. The CI correlated significantly with the overall outcome, the presence of frontal bossing, and the interval between scan and surgery (age at scan). Minimally invasive strip craniectomy is an elegant and safe method to correct scaphocephaly. Our data show good cosmetic results in the long term even without regular postoperative helmet therapy.

Sagittal Craniosynostosis: Treatment and Outcomes According to Age at Intervention

The purpose of this study is to describe the treatment strategies and outcomes of nonsyndromic single-suture sagittal craniosynostosis based on the patient's age at intervention. Studies from MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched for patients with nonsyndromic single-suture sagittal craniosynostosis. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies with follow-up of at least 12 months, minimum of 25 patients per cohort, and first-time surgical intervention. The risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of intervention tool [Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I)] was applied. A total of 49 manuscripts with 3316 patients met criteria. Articles were categorized based on age at intervention; 0 to 6, older than 6 to 12, and older than 12 months. Fifteen of the manuscripts described interventions in more than 1 age group. From the 49 articles, 39 (n=2141) included patients 0 to 6 months old, 15 (n=669) discussed patients older than 6 to 12 months old, and 9 (n=506) evaluated patients older than 12 months old. Follow-up ranged from 12 to 144 months. Over 8 types of open surgical techniques were identified and 5 different minimally invasive procedures were described. Minimally invasive procedures were exclusively seen in the youngest patient cohort, while open cranial vault reconstructions were often seen in the 2 older cohorts. Endoscopic surgery and open conservative procedures are indicated for younger patients, while complex open cranial vault reconstructions are common in older patients. However, there is no consensus on one approach over the other. Even with the analysis of this review, we cannot factor a strong conclusion on a specific technique.

Automated surgical planning in spring-assisted sagittal craniosynostosis correction using finite element analysis and machine learning

Sagittal synostosis is a condition caused by the fused sagittal suture and results in a narrowed skull in infants. Spring-assisted cranioplasty is a correction technique used to expand skulls with sagittal craniosynostosis by placing compressed springs on the skull before six months of age. Proposed methods for surgical planning in spring-assisted sagittal craniosynostosis correction provide information only about the skull anatomy or require iterative finite element simulations. Therefore, the selection of surgical parameters such as spring dimensions and osteotomy sizes may remain unclear and spring-assisted cranioplasty may yield sub-optimal surgical results. The aim of this study is to develop the architectural structure of an automated tool to predict post-operative surgical outcomes in sagittal craniosynostosis correction with spring-assisted cranioplasty using machine learning and finite element analyses. Six different machine learning algorithms were tested using a finite element model which simulated a combination of various mechanical and geometric properties of the calvarium, osteotomy sizes, spring characteristics, and spring implantation positions. Also, a statistical shape model representing an average sagittal craniosynostosis calvarium in 5-month-old patients was used to assess the machine learning algorithms. XGBoost algorithm predicted post-operative cephalic index in spring-assisted sagittal craniosynostosis correction with high accuracy. Finite element simulations confirmed the prediction of the XGBoost algorithm. The presented architectural structure can be used to develop a tool to predict the post-operative cephalic index in spring-assisted cranioplasty in patients with sagittal craniosynostosis can be used to automate surgical planning and improve post-operative surgical outcomes in spring-assisted cranioplasty.

Craniometric and Aesthetic Outcomes in Craniosynostosis Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the published comparative aesthetic outcomes, and its determinants, for craniosynostoses surgically treated by minimally-invasive cranial procedures and open cranial vault remodeling (CVR).

DESIGN

PRISMA-compliant systematic review.

SETTING

Not-applicable.

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS

Articles were included if they compared spring cranioplasty, strip minimally-invasive craniectomy or CVR for outcomes related to aesthetics or head shape. Forty-two studies were included, comprising 2402 patients.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The craniometric and PROM used to determine surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies (59%) evaluated sagittal craniosynostosis, with metopic (7;17%) and unicoronal (4;10%) the next most prevalent. Thirty-eight studies (90%) included CVR, 24 (57%) included strip craniectomy with helmeting, 9 (22%) included strip craniectomy without helmeting, 11 (26%) included spring cranioplasty, and 3 (7%) included vault distraction. A majority of studies only used 1 (43%) or 2 (14%) craniometric measures to compare techniques. In sagittal synostosis, 13 (59%) studies showed no difference in craniometric outcomes, 5 (23%) showed better results with CVR, 3 (14%) with strip craniectomy, and 1 (5%) with springs. In studies describing other synostoses, 10/14 (71%) were equivocal. Subjective outcome measures followed similar trends. Meta-analysis shows no significant difference in cranial index (CI) outcomes between CVR and less invasive procedures in patients with sagittal synostosis.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no difference in CI outcomes between CVR and less invasive procedures. The majority of literature comparing craniometric and aesthetic outcomes between CVR and less invasive procedures shows equivocal results for sagittal synostosis. However, the heterogeneity of data for other craniosynostoses did not allow meta-analysis.

A preliminary analysis of replicating the biomechanics of helmet therapy for sagittal craniosynostosis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate the biomechanics of endoscopically assisted strip craniectomy treatment for the management of sagittal craniosynostosis while undergoing three different durations of postoperative helmet therapy using a computational approach.

METHODS

A previously developed 3D model of a 4-month-old sagittal craniosynostosis patient was used. The strip craniectomy incisions were replicated across the segmented parietal bones. Areas across the calvarial were selected and constrained to represent the helmet placement after surgery. Skull growth was modelled and three variations of helmet therapy were investigated, where the timings of helmet removal alternated between 2, 5, and 8 months after surgery.

RESULTS

The predicted outcomes suggest that the prolonging of helmet placement has perhaps a beneficial impact on the postoperative long-term morphology of the skull. No considerable difference was found on the pattern of contact pressure at the interface of growing intracranial volume and the skull between the considered helmeting durations.

CONCLUSION

Although the validation of these simulations could not be performed, these simulations showed that the duration of helmet therapy after endoscopically assisted strip craniectomy influenced the cephalic index at 36 months. Further studies require to validate these preliminary findings yet this study can lay the foundations for further studies to advance our fundamental understanding of mechanics of helmet therapy.

Endoscopic strip craniectomy with molding helmet therapy versus spring-assisted cranioplasty for nonsyndromic single-suture sagittal craniosynostosis: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic strip craniectomy with postoperative molding helmet therapy (ESC-H) and spring-assisted cranioplasty (SAC) are commonly used minimally invasive techniques for correction of nonsyndromic sagittal craniosynostosis, but it is unclear which, if either, is superior. Therefore, the authors undertook a systematic review to compare ESC-H with SAC for the surgical management of nonsyndromic single-suture sagittal craniosynostosis.

METHODS

Studies were identified through a systematic and comprehensive search of four databases (Embase, MEDLINE, and two databases in the Cochrane Library). Databases were searched from inception until February 19, 2021. Pediatric patients undergoing either ESC-H or SAC for the management of nonsyndromic single-suture sagittal craniosynostosis were included. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses, single-patient case reports, mixed cohorts of nonsyndromic and syndromic patients, mixed cohorts of different craniosynostosis types, and studies in which no outcomes of interest were reported were excluded. Outcomes of interest included reoperations, blood transfusion, complications, postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) admission, operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and cephalic index. Pooled summary cohort characteristics were calculated for each outcome of interest. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The study was reported in accordance with the 2020 PRISMA statement.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were eligible for inclusion in the review, including 1094 patients, of whom 605 (55.3%) underwent ESC-H and 489 (44.7%) underwent SAC for nonsyndromic sagittal craniosynostosis. There was no difference between the pooled estimates of the ESC-H and SAC groups for operative time, length of stay, estimated blood loss, and cephalic index. There was no difference between the groups for reoperation rate and complication rate. However, ESC-H was associated with a higher blood transfusion rate and higher postoperative ICU admission.

CONCLUSIONS

The available literature does not demonstrate superiority of either ESC-H or SAC, and outcomes are broadly similar for the treatment of nonsyndromic sagittal craniosynostosis. However, the evidence is limited by single-center retrospective studies with low methodological quality. There is a need for international multicenter randomized controlled trials comparing both techniques to gain definitive and generalizable data.