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.
MaggeSNBartolozziARAlmeidaND, et al.A comparison of endoscopic strip craniectomy and pi craniectomy for treatment of sagittal craniosynostosis. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2019;23(6):708-714. doi:10.3171/2019.1.PEDS18203
2.
CornelissenMOttelanderBdRizopoulosD, et al.Increase of prevalence of craniosynostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2016;44(9):1273-1279. doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2016.07.007
KolarJC. An epidemiological study of nonsyndromal craniosynostoses. J Craniofac Surg. 2011;22(1):47-49. doi:10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181f6c2fb
5.
Kapp-SimonKASpeltzMLCunninghamMLPatelPKTomitaT. Neurodevelopment of children with single suture craniosynostosis: A review. Childs Nerv Syst. 2007;23(3):269-281. doi:10.1007/s00381-006-0251-z
6.
Odilon Marc Lannelongue. De la craniectomie dans la microcéphalie. 1890;(50):1382-1385.
7.
LaneLC. Pioneer craniectomy for relief of mental imbecility due to premature sutural closure and Microcephalus. J Am Med Assoc. 1892;Xviii(2):49-50. doi:10.1001/jama.1892.02411060019001f.
8.
JacobiA. Non Nocere. Vol 45.; 1894.
9.
MehtaVABettegowdaCJalloGIAhnES. The evolution of surgical management for craniosynostosis. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;29(6):E5. doi:10.3171/2010.9.FOCUS10204
10.
MountLA. Premature closure of sutures of cranial vault; a plea for early recognition and early operation. N Y State J Med. 1947;47(3):270-276.
11.
MatsonDD. Neurosurgery of Infancy and Childhood. 2nd ed. (MatsonDDIngrahamFD, eds.). Charles C Thomas; 1969.
12.
BoulosPTLinKYKJaneJAJaneJA. Correction of sagittal synostosis using a modified Π method. Clin Plast Surg. 2004;31(3):489-498. doi:10.1016/j.cps.2004.03.011
13.
TessierP. Relationship of craniostenoses to craniofacial dysostoses, and to faciostenoses: A study with therapeutic implications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1971;48(3):224-237. doi:10.1097/00006534-197109000-00005
14.
TessierP. The definitive plastic surgical treatment of the severe facial deformities of craniofacial dysostosis. Crouzon's and Apert's diseases. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1971;48(5):419-442. doi:10.1097/00006534-197111000-00002
15.
JimenezDFBaroneCM. Endoscopic craniectomy for early surgical correction of sagittal craniosynostosis. J Neurosurg. 1998;88(1):77-81. doi:10.3171/jns.1998.88.1.0077
16.
PersingJA. MOC-PS(SM) CME article: Management considerations in the treatment of craniosynostosis. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (1963). 2008;121(4 Suppl):1-11. doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000305929.40363.bf.
17.
KvIMearaJGProctorMR. Analysis of clinical outcomes for treatment of sagittal craniosynostosis: A comparison of endoscopic suturectomy and cranial vault remodeling. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2018;22(5):467-474. doi:10.3171/2018.5.PEDS1846
18.
GeretyPABastaMNFischerJPTaylorJA. Operative management of nonsyndromic sagittal synostosis: A head-to-head meta-analysis of outcomes comparing 3 techniques. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2015;26(4):1251-1257. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000001651
BennettKGHespeGEVerclerCJBuchmanSR. Short- and long-term outcomes by procedure type for nonsagittal single-suture craniosynostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30(2):458-464. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000005129
21.
LauritzenCGKDavisCIvarssonASangerCHewittTD. The evolving role of springs in craniofacial surgery: The first 100 clinical cases. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121(2):545-554. doi:10.1097/01.PRS.0000297638.76602.DE
SzpalskiCWeichmanKSagebinFWarrenSM. Need for standard outcome reporting systems in craniosynostosis. Neurosurg Focus. 2011;31(2):E1. doi:10.3171/2011.6.FOCUS1192
24.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br Med J.2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71
SullivanDChungKCEavesFFRohrichRJ. The level of evidence pyramid: Indicating levels of evidence in plastic and reconstructive surgery articles. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(1):311-314. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182195826
27.
SterneJACHernánMAReevesBC, et al.ROBINS-I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. Br Med J.2016;355:i4919. doi:10.1136/bmj.i4919
28.
WilsonATGaillardLVersnelSLSpoorJKHvan VeelenMLCMathijssenIMJ. Disappointing results of spring-assisted cranial vault expansion in patients with crouzon syndrome presenting with sagittal synostosis. Neurosurg Focus. 2021;50(4):E12. doi:10.3171/2021.1.FOCUS20739
29.
Al-ShaqsiSZLamNWForrestCRPhillipsJH. Endoscopic versus open total vault reconstruction of sagittal craniosynostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(3):915-919. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000007307
30.
MassimiLTamburriniGCaldarelliMdi RoccoC. Effectiveness of a limited invasive scalp approach in the correction of sagittal craniosynostosis. Childs Nerv Syst. 2007;23(12):1389-1401. doi:10.1007/s00381-007-0472-9
31.
LeMBPatelKSkolnickG, et al.Assessing long-term outcomes of open and endoscopic sagittal synostosis reconstruction using three-dimensional photography. J Craniofac Surg. 2014;25(2):573-576. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000000613
32.
LepardJAkbariSHAMooneyJ, et al.Comparison of aesthetic outcomes between open and endoscopically treated sagittal craniosynostosis. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2021;28(4):432-438. doi:10.3171/2021.3.PEDS20894
33.
ThomasGPLJohnsonDByrenJC, et al.Long-term morphological outcomes in nonsyndromic sagittal craniosynostosis: A comparison of 2 techniques. J Craniofac Surg. 2015;26(1):19-25. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000001107
34.
de PraeterMNadjmiNReithFCMVercruysseHMenovskyT. Is there an advantage to minimizing surgery in scaphocephaly? A study on extended strip craniotomy versus extensive cranial vault remodeling. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30(6):1714-1718. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000005516
35.
SkolnickGBYuJLPatelKB, et al.Comparison of 2 sagittal craniosynostosis repair techniques: Spring-assisted surgery versus endoscope-assisted craniectomy with helmet molding therapy. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2021;58(6):678-686. doi:10.1177/1055665620966521
36.
van VeelenMLCJippesMCarolinaJCA, et al.Volume measurements on three-dimensional photogrammetry after extended strip versus total cranial remodeling for sagittal synostosis: A comparative cohort study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016;44(10):1713-1718. doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2016.07.029
37.
HassaneinAGFadleKN. Assessment of the outcome of calvarial vault remodeling and spring-mediated cranioplasty in the correction of isolated sagittal suture synostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2020;31(7):e747-e752. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000006807
38.
Guimarães-FerreiraJGewalliFDavidLOlssonRFriedeHLauritzenCGK. Spring-mediated cranioplasty compared with the modified pi-plasty for sagittal synostosis. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2003;37(4):208-215. doi:10.1080/02844310310001823
39.
BradfordPSIshaqueMShaffreyE, et al.Evolution of surgical management of sagittal synostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(1):155-158. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000007194
40.
FischerSMalteseGTarnowPWikbergEBernhardtPKölbyL. Comparison of intracranial volume and cephalic Index after correction of sagittal synostosis with spring-assisted surgery or pi-plasty. J Craniofac Surg. 2016;27(2):410-413. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000002519
41.
MertensCWesselEBergerM, et al.The value of three-dimensional photogrammetry in isolated sagittal synostosis: Impact of age and surgical technique on intracranial volume and cephalic index─a retrospective cohort study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017;45(12):2010-2016. doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2017.09.019
42.
PanchalJMarshJLParkTSKaufmanBPilgramTHuangSH. Sagittal craniosynostosis outcome assessment for two methods and timings of intervention. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;103(6):1574-1584. doi:10.1097/00006534-199905060-00004
43.
RunyanCMGabrickKSParkJG, et al.Long-Term outcomes of spring-assisted surgery for sagittal craniosynostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;146(4):833-841. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000007168
44.
ShahMNKaneAAPetersenJDWooASNaidooSDSmythMD. Endoscopically assisted versus open repair of sagittal craniosynostosis: The St. Louis children’s hospital experience - clinical article. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2011;8(2):165-170. doi:10.3171/2011.5.PEDS1128
45.
TaylorJAMaugansTA. Comparison of spring-mediated cranioplasty to minimally invasive strip craniectomy and barrel staving for early treatment of sagittal craniosynostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2011;22(4):1225-1229. doi:10.1097/SCS.0b013e31821c0f10
46.
TeichgraeberJFBaumgartnerJEWallerAL, et al.Microscopic minimally invasive approach to nonsyndromic craniosynostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2009;20(5):1492-1500. doi:10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181b09c4a
47.
WindhPDavisCSangerCSahlinPLauritzenC. Spring-assisted cranioplasty vs pi-plasty for sagittal synostosis–a long term follow-up study. J Craniofac Surg. 2008;19(1):59-64. doi:10.1097/scs.0b013e31815c94c8
48.
HaAYSkolnickGBChiD, et al.School-Aged anthropometric outcomes after endoscopic or open repair of metopic synostosis. Pediatrics. 2020;146(3):e20200238. doi:10.1542/peds.2020-0238
49.
BadieeRKPopowitzEMarkIT, et al.Superior long-term appearance of strip craniectomy compared with cranial vault reconstruction in metopic craniosynostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2022;10(2):e4097. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000004097
50.
FarberSJNguyenDCSkolnickGBNaidooSDSmythMDPatelKB. Anthropometric outcome measures in patients with metopic craniosynostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2017;28(3):713-716. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000003495
51.
MalteseGTarnowPTovetjärnRKölbyL. Correction of hypotelorism in isolated metopic synostosis. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2014;48(1):63-66. doi:10.3109/2000656X.2013.812967
52.
PresslerMPHallacRRGeislerELSeawardJRKaneAA. Comparison of head shape outcomes in metopic synostosis using limited strip craniectomy and open vault reconstruction techniques. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2021;58(6):669-677. doi:10.1177/1055665620969294
53.
DomeshekLFWooASkolnickGB, et al.Postoperative changes in orbital dysmorphology in patients with unicoronal synostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30(2):483-488. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000005169
54.
MasseranoBWooASSkolnickGB, et al.The temporal region in unilateral coronal craniosynostosis: Fronto-orbital advancement versus endoscopy-assisted strip craniectomy. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(3):423-429. doi:10.1177/1055665617739000
55.
TanSPKProctorMRMullikenJBRogersGF. Early frontofacial symmetry after correction of unilateral coronal synostosis: Frontoorbital advancement vs endoscopic strip craniectomy and helmet therapy. J Craniofac Surg. 2013;24(4):1190-1194. doi:10.1097/SCS.0b013e318299742e
56.
WilliamsCTSegarDJNaidooSD, et al.Evaluation of endoscopic strip craniectomy and orthotic therapy for bilateral coronal craniosynostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30(2):453-457. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000005118
57.
RieselJNRiordanCPHughesCD, et al.Endoscopic strip craniectomy with orthotic helmeting for safe improvement of head growth in children with Apert syndrome. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2022;29(6):1-8. Published online. doi:10.3171/2022.2.PEDS21340.
58.
RattaniARiordanCPMearaJGProctorMR. Comparative analysis of cranial vault remodeling versus endoscopic suturectomy in the treatment of unilateral lambdoid craniosynostosis. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2020;26(2):105-112. doi:10.3171/2020.2.PEDS19522
59.
ZubovicEWooASSkolnickGBNaidooSDSmythMDPatelKB. Cranial base and posterior cranial vault asymmetry after open and endoscopic repair of isolated lambdoid craniosynostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2015;26(5):1568-1573. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000001891
60.
de JongTvan VeelenMLCMathijssenIMJ. Spring-assisted posterior vault expansion in multisuture craniosynostosis. Childs Nerv Syst. 2013;29(5):815-820. doi:10.1007/s00381-013-2033-8
61.
MillesiMPreischerMReinprechtA. Do standard surgical techniques lead to satisfying aesthetic results in nonsyndromic sagittal suture synostosis?J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2021;28(5):502-507. doi:10.3171/2021.4.PEDS2166
62.
MaugansTAMcCombJGLevyML. Surgical management of sagittal synostosis: A comparative analysis of strip craniectomy and calvarial vault remodeling. Pediatr Neurosurg. 1997;27(3):137-148. doi:10.1159/000121241
63.
PanchalJMarshJLParkTSKaufmanBPilgramT. Photographic assessment of head shape following sagittal synostosis surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;103(6):1585-1591. doi:10.1097/00006534-199905060-00005
64.
BenklerMHallacRRGeislerELKaneAA. Correction of metopic craniosynostosis using limited incision strip craniectomy versus open fronto-orbital reconstruction: An assessment of aesthetic outcomes. J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(8):2768-2770. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000007931
65.
YanHAbelTJAlotaibiNM, et al.A systematic review of endoscopic versus open treatment of craniosynostosis. Part 2: The nonsagittal single sutures. J Neurosurg Pediatr.2018;22(4):361-368. doi:10.3171/2018.4.PEDS17730.
66.
YanHAbelTJAlotaibiNM, et al.A systematic review and meta-analysis of endoscopic versus open treatment of craniosynostosis. Part 1: The sagittal suture. J Neurosurg Pediatr.2018;22(4):352-360. doi:10.3171/2018.4.PEDS17729.
67.
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:10.1097/PRS.0000000000000511
68.
AlperovichMRunyanCMGabrickKS, et al.Long-Term neurocognitive outcomes of spring-assisted surgery versus cranial vault remodeling for sagittal synostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;147(3):661-671. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000007640
69.
WuRTGabrickKSSinghA, et al.Comparison of neurocognitive outcomes in postoperative adolescents with unilateral coronal synostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;146(3):614-619. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000007067
70.
ChuangCChaunzwaTLWuR, et al.Long-Term neurocognitive outcomes in sagittal synostosis: The impact of reoperation. J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(1):58-61. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000006909
71.
HashimPWPatelAYangJF, et al.The effects of whole-vault cranioplasty versus strip craniectomy on long-term neuropsychological outcomes in sagittal craniosynostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(3):491-501. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000000420
72.
PersingJAMayesLBridgettD, et al.Reply: The effects of whole-vault cranioplasty versus strip craniectomy on long-term neuropsychological outcomes in sagittal craniosynostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136(1):115e-117e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000001341
73.
PurnellCAKapp-SimonKA. Discussion: Long-term neurocognitive outcomes of spring-assisted surgery versus cranial vault remodeling for sagittal synostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;147(3):674-675. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000007693
74.
ChandlerLAllamOParkKE, et al.Spring-Assisted strip craniectomy versus cranial vault remodeling: Long-term psychological, behavioral, and executive function outcomes. J Craniofac Surg. 2020;31(7):2101-2105. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000006806
75.
SwansonJWHaasJAMitchellBT, et al.The effects of molding helmet therapy on spring-mediated cranial vault remodeling for sagittal craniosynostosis. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2016;27(6):1398-1403. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000002829
76.
GocimanBAgkoMBlaggRGarlickJKestleJRWSiddiqiF. Endoscopic-assisted correction of metopic synostosis. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2013;24(3):763-768. doi:10.1097/SCS.0B013E31828696A5
77.
ChouPYHallacRRPatelS, et al.Three-dimensional changes in head shape after extended sagittal strip craniectomy with wedge ostectomies and helmet therapy. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2017;19(6):684-689. doi:10.3171/2017.1.PEDS16660
78.
O’ConnellJEEllenbogenJParksC. Early extended midline strip craniectomy for sagittal synostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2020;31(5):1223-1227. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000006373
79.
BonfieldCMLeePSAdamoMAPollackIF. Surgical treatment of sagittal synostosis by extended strip craniectomy: Cranial index, nasofrontal angle, reoperation rate, and a review of the literature. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery. 2014;42(7):1095-1101. doi:10.1016/J.JCMS.2014.01.036
80.
WexlerACahanL. The venetian blind technique: Modification of the pi procedure for the surgical correction of sagittal synostosis. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2012;23(7 SUPPL.1):2047-2048. doi:10.1097/SCS.0B013E318266033A.
81.
WoodBCAhnESWangJY, et al.Less is more: Does the addition of barrel staves improve results in endoscopic strip craniectomy for sagittal craniosynostosis?Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics PED. 2017;20(1):86-90. doi:10.3171/2017.1.PEDS16478
82.
GreensmithALHolmesADLoPMaxinerWHeggieAAMearaJG. Complete correction of severe scaphocephaly: The Melbourne method of total vault remodeling. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121(4):1300-1310. doi:10.1097/01.PRS.0000304592.56498.D6
83.
FearonJADitthakasemKHerbertMKolarJ. An appraisal of the cephalic Index in sagittal craniosynostosis, and the unseen third dimension. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(1):138-145. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000003422
84.
MassenburgBBShepardEMercanE, et al.Morphologic differences in sagittal synostosis with age before surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2022;149(6):1165e-1175e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000009143
85.
KhechoyanDSchookCBirgfeldCB, et al.Changes in frontal morphology after single-stage open posterior-middle vault expansion for sagittal craniosynostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129(2):504-516. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e31823aec1d
86.
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:10.1007/s00381-022-05518-3
87.
BooklandMJAhnESStoltzPMartinJE. Image processing and machine learning for telehealth craniosynostosis screening in newborns. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2021;27(5):581-588. Published 2021 Mar 19. doi:10.3171/2020.9.PEDS20605.
88.
McEwanTWMartinALTanakaTAldridgeKMuzaffarAR. Evaluating children with metopic craniosynostosis: The cephalic width-intercoronal distance ratio. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2016;53(4):e95-e100. doi:10.1597/14-310
LiuMTKhechoyanDYSusarlaSM, et al.Evolution of bandeau shape, orbital morphology, and craniofacial twist after fronto-orbital advancement for isolated unilateral coronal synostosis: A case-control study of 2-year outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143(6):1703-1711. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000005639.
91.
CaptierGLeboucqNBigorreM, et al.Plagiocephaly: Morphometry of skull base asymmetry. Surg Radiol Anat. 2003;25(3-4):226-233. doi:10.1007/s00276-003-0118-x
92.
O'HaraJWayBBorghiAKnoopsPGMChuaDHaywardRD. The turricephaly index: A validated method for recording turricephaly and its natural history in Apert syndrome. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2019;47(3):414-419. doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2018.12.007
93.
PloplysEAHopperRAMuzaffarAR, et al.Comparison of computed tomographic imaging measurements with clinical findings in children with unilateral lambdoid synostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123(1):300-309. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e31819346b5
94.
NguyenAPurnellCAMercanE, et al.Cranial Shape Changes in Non-syndromic Unilateral Lambdoid Synostosis after Open Posterior Vault Remodeling. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2023 ;152(1):155-165. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000010228
95.
AdidharmaWMercanEPurnellC, et al.Evolution of cranioorbital shape in nonsyndromic, Muenke, and Saethre-Chotzen bilateral coronal synostosis: A case-control study of 2-year outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg.2021;147(1):148-159. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000007494.
96.
SzeRWHopperRAGhioniV, et al.MDCT Diagnosis of the Child with Posterior Plagiocephaly. http://dx.doi.org/102214/AJR041388. 2012;185(5):1342-1346. doi:10.2214/AJR.04.1388.
97.
PfeifaufKDSaidAMNaidooSD, et al.Evaluation of the patient-practitioner consultation on surgical treatment options for patients with craniosynostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2020;31(5):1186-1190. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000006327
98.
ChiDGibsonEChiangSN, et al.A multi-institutional survey on calvarial vault remodeling techniques for sagittal synostosis and outcomes analysis for patients treated at 12 months and older. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2022;30(5):490-498. doi:10.3171/2022.7.PEDS22139
99.
RavindraVMAwadAWBakerCM, et al.Preoperative imaging patterns and intracranial findings in single-suture craniosynostosis: A study from the synostosis research group. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2021;28(3):344-350. doi:10.3171/2021.2.PEDS2113
100.
KestleJRWLeeAAndersonRCE, et al.Variation in the management of isolated craniosynostosis: A survey of the synostosis research group. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2018;22(6):627-631. doi:10.3171/2018.7.PEDS18132
101.
BakerCMRavindraVMGocimanB, et al.Management of sagittal synostosis in the synostosis research group: Baseline data and early outcomes. Neurosurg Focus. 2021;50(4):1-6. doi:10.3171/2021.1.FOCUS201029
102.
WallaceERBirgfeldCSpeltzMLStarrJRCollettBR. Surgical approach and periprocedural outcomes by race and ethnicity of children undergoing craniosynostosis surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;144(6):1384. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000006254
103.
SacksGNSkolnickGBTrachtenbergA, et al.The impact of ethnicity on craniosynostosis in the United States. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2019;30(8):2526. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000006009
104.
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:10.1016/j.jpeds.2015.02.007
105.
WesAMNaranSSunJ, et al.The Whitaker classification of craniosynostosis outcomes: An assessment of interrater reliability. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(4):579E-586E. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000003688
106.
BendonCLJohnsonHPJudgeADWallSAJohnsonD. The aesthetic outcome of surgical correction for sagittal synostosis can be reliably scored by a novel method of preoperative and postoperative visual assessment. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(5):775e-786e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000000633
107.
MarcusJRStokesTHMukundanSForrestCR. Quantitative and qualitative assessment of morphology in sagittal synostosis: Mid-sagittal vector analysis. J Craniofac Surg. 2006;17(4):680-686. doi:10.1097/00001665-200607000-00013
108.
MassenburgBBMercanEShepardE, et al.Morphometric outcomes of nonsyndromic sagittal synostosis following open middle and posterior cranial vault expansion. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2023;151(4):844-854. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000010008
109.
ChenLMercanEMassenburgBB, et al.Two Year Comparison of Sagittal Synostosis Morphometric Outcomes Following Open Posterior Expansion Versus Endoscopic Strip Craniectomy with Helmet Molding Performed before Four Months of Age [published online ahead of print, 2023 May 12]. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2023;10.1097/PRS.0000000000010679. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000010679
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
