Given the consequences of delayed treatment and diagnosis of craniosynostosis, this study reviews the literature on sociodemographic risk factors and disparities associated with delayed craniosynostosis treatment.
Design
A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A literature search of PubMed/Medline and Embase was performed by two independent reviewers. Included studies discussed craniosynostosis health disparities. Demographic characteristics and outcomes were analyzed.
Setting
Not applicable.
Patients
Patients with craniosynostosis.
Interventions
Standard surgical intervention for craniosynostosis.
Results
Our literature search yielded 273 studies, of which 18 were included for analysis. Included studies represented data from 31 256 U.S. patients with craniosynostosis. Sixty percent of patients (n = 16 510) were White, 13.8% were Hispanic/Latino, 6.2% were Black/African American, 1.3% were Asian, 0.3% were American Indian or Alaska Native, and 0.1% were Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. Average age at surgery was 6.36 months for White patients, 10.63 months for Black patients, and 9.18 months for Hispanic patients. Minority racial and/or ethnic status was a risk factor for delayed presentation, and increased incidence of open surgery, complication rates, hospital charges, operative time, anesthesia duration, and hospital length of stay. Government-funded health insurance was associated with delayed intervention and increased complications.
Conclusions
Minority craniosynostosis patients experience delays in intervention and increased complication rates. Our findings highlight the importance of expedited and equitable referrals, screenings, and treatment, and the need for a standardized approach to investigating longitudinal demographic and outcomes data in this population.
KalmarCLHumphriesLSMcGeehanB, et al.Elevated intracranial pressure in patients with craniosynostosis by optical coherence tomography. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2022;149(3):677‐690. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000008821.
2.
PatelAYangJFHashimPW, et al.The impact of age at surgery on long-term neuropsychological outcomes in sagittal craniosynostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(4):608e‐617e. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000511.
3.
MaggeSNWesterveldMPruzinskyTPersingJA. Long-term neuropsychological effects of sagittal craniosynostosis on child development. J Craniofac Surg. 2002;13(1):99‐104. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/00001665-200201000-00023.
4.
TillmanKKHöijerJRamklintMEkseliusLNowinskiDPapadopoulosFC. Nonsyndromic craniosynostosis is associated with increased risk for psychiatric disorders. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;146(2):355‐365. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000007009.
5.
HoffmanCValentiABOdigieEWarrenKPremaratneIDImahiyeroboTA. Impact of health disparities on treatment for single-suture craniosynostosis in an era of multimodal care. Neurosurg Focus. 2021;50(4):E13. doi:https://doi.org/10.3171/2021.1.FOCUS201000.
6.
BrownZDBeyAKBonfieldCM, et al.Racial disparities in health care access among pediatric patients with craniosynostosis. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2016;18(3):269‐274. doi:https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.1.PEDS15593.
LiberatiAAltmanDGTetzlaffJ, et al.The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100.
9.
AndersonIAGoomanyABonthronDT, et al.Does patient ethnicity affect site of craniosynostosis?J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2014;14(6):682‐687. doi:https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.9.PEDS14123.
10.
KalmarCLZapateroZDKosykMSBartlettSPTaylorJA. Geographic financial analysis of craniosynostosis surgery in the United States. J Craniofac Surg. 2022;33(5):1282‐1287. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000008627.
11.
KeyhoRJCepedaAJrGreivesMRNguyenPD. Socioeconomic factors impact the timing of surgical repair for craniosynostosis – A regional and national assessment. J Craniofac Surg. 2022;33(5):1497‐1501. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000008405
12.
WallaceERBirgfeldCSpeltzMLStarrJRCollettBR. Surgical approach and periprocedural outcomes by race and ethnicity of children undergoing craniosynostosis surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;144(6):1384‐1391. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006254.
13.
ShweikehFFouladDNuñoMDrazinDAdamoMA. Differences in surgical outcomes for patients with craniosynostosis in the US: impact of socioeconomic variables and race. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2016;17(1):27‐33. doi:https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.4.PEDS14342.
14.
StanboulyDAschermanJAChuangSK. Open repair versus closed repair: a cost-analysis of the two surgical approaches for the treatment of craniosynostoses. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;80(3):465‐470. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2021.08.165.
15.
MozaffariMAHaucSCJunnAHJunnADinisJAlperovichM. Socioeconomic disparities in the surgical management of craniosynostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2022;33(1):294‐297. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000008177.
16.
GandolfiBMSobolDLFarjatAEAlloriACMuhCRMarcusJR. Risk factors for delayed referral to a craniofacial specialist for treatment of craniosynostosis. J Pediatr. 2017;186:165‐171. e2. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.03.048.
17.
SacksGNSkolnickGBTrachtenbergA, et al.The impact of ethnicity on craniosynostosis in the United States. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30(8):2526‐2529. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000006009.
18.
BlumJDChoDYCheungL, et al.Making the diagnosis in sagittal craniosynostosis-it’s height, not length, that matters. Childs Nerv Syst. 2022;38(7):1331‐1340. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-022-05518-3.
19.
WattALeeJToewsMGilardinoMS. Smartphone integration of artificial intelligence for automated plagiocephaly diagnosis. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2023;11(5):e4985. Published 2023 May 15. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000004985
20.
BenkertRCuevasAThompsonHSDove-MeadowsEKnucklesD. Ubiquitous yet unclear: a systematic review of medical mistrust [published correction appears in Behav Med. 2022 Jul-Sep;48(3):238]. Behav Med. 2019;45(2):86‐101. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/08964289.2019.1588220.
21.
GuerreroNMendes de LeonCFEvansDAJacobsEA. Determinants of trust in health care in an older population. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63(3):553‐557. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.13316.
22.
DesaiMUBellamyCGuyKCostaMO’ConnellMJDavidsonL. “If you want to know about the book, ask the author”: enhancing community engagement through participatory research in clinical mental health settings. Behav Med. 2019;45(2):177‐187. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/08964289.2019.1587589.
23.
RamosSRWarrenRShedlinMMelkusGKershawTVorderstrasseA. A framework for using eHealth interventions to overcome medical mistrust among sexual minority men of color living with chronic conditions. Behav Med. 2019;45(2):166‐176. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/08964289.2019.1570074.
24.
JaiswalJ. Whose responsibility is it to dismantle medical mistrust? Future directions for researchers and health care providers. Behav Med. 2019;45(2):188‐196. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/08964289.2019.1630357.
25.
LynnJVBuchmanLKBreulerCJBuchmanSR. Surgical timing and neurocognitive development among patients with craniosynostosis: analysis of confounders. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2023;151(4):821‐829. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000010004.
26.
KalmarCLLangSSHeuerGG, et al.Neurocognitive outcomes of children with non-syndromic single-suture craniosynostosis. Childs Nerv Syst. 2022;38(5):893‐901. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-022-05448-0.
BlumJDBeirigerJVillavisanisDF, et al.Machine learning in metopic craniosynostosis: does phenotypic severity predict long-term esthetic outcome?J Craniofac Surg. 2023;34(1):58‐64. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000008868.
29.
LinYPanIWHarrisDALuerssenTGLamS. The impact of insurance, race, and ethnicity on age at surgical intervention among children with nonsyndromic craniosynostosis. J Pediatr. 2015;166(5):1289‐1296. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2015.02.007.
30.
HsiangWRLukasiewiczAGentryM, et al.Medicaid patients have greater difficulty scheduling health care appointments compared with private insurance patients: a meta-analysis. Inquiry. 2019;56:46958019838118. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0046958019838118.
31.
AyoadeOFFowlerJR. Effect of insurance type on access to orthopedic care for pediatric trigger thumb. J Hand Surg Am. 2020;45(9):881.e1‐881.e5. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2020.03.003
32.
AherreraASPandyaSN. A cohort analysis of postbariatric panniculectomy–current trends in surgeon reimbursement. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;76(1):99‐101. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000000532.
33.
AliuOAugerKASunGH, et al.The effect of pre-affordable care act (ACA) medicaid eligibility expansion in New York state on access to specialty surgical care. Med Care. 2014;52(9):790‐795. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000175.
FirouzbakhtPKShaumKMIsraelJSRaoVK. Medicaid for the plastic and reconstructive surgeon. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145(3):637e‐646e. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006560.
36.
MesserLCLaraiaBAKaufmanJS, et al.The development of a standardized neighborhood deprivation index. J Urban Health. 2006;83(6):1041‐1062. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-006-9094-x.
