Search Results

Object

Although most patients with sagittal craniosynostosis are recognized and treated in infancy, some children are not referred to craniofacial centers until later in childhood. In this paper the authors describe a novel operative technique for calvarial reconstruction in older children with previously untreated sagittal craniosynostosis.

开云体育世界杯赔率

The authors report a clinical series of eight patients who were treated using novel single-stage calvarial reconstruction, and they assess the complications and outcomes. The patient is placed supine for the procedure, which consists of a coronal incision, bifrontal craniotomy without orbital osteotomy, and multiple interlocking midline parietooccipital osteotomies and recontouring. Fixation is achieved using a bioabsorbable plate system. Cranial indices were calculated from measurements obtained before and after the reconstructive procedures. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative photographs and three-dimensional computed tomography scans are presented for review.

Between November 2003 and April 2005, the authors treated seven boys (age range ~ 1–10 years, mean age 4.2 years) with uncorrected sagittal craniosynostosis and one with bicoronal and sagittal synostosis. The mean operating time was 5.13 hours (range 4.3–8 hours), with a mean blood loss of 425 ml (range 200–800 ml). As a percentage of the estimated circulating blood volume, the mean operative blood loss was 33.5% (range 17–57%). The mean hospital stay was 4.9 days. The cranial index significantly improved from a mean of 65.6 to 71.3% (p = 0.001). No acute or delayed complications have been noted. Follow-up examinations performed at an average of 12 months (range 1–17 months) have confirmed early patient and family satisfaction.

Conclusions

An approach of aggressive calvarial reconstruction with multiple interleaving osteotomies crossing the midline achieves improvements in biparietal narrowing. Combined with a bifrontal reconstruction, early outcomes are excellent, with an acceptable amount of intraoperative blood loss and no significant complications.

Object

This study investigated the differences in effectiveness and morbidity between endoscopically assisted wide-vertex strip craniectomy with barrel-stave osteotomies and postoperative helmet therapy versus open calvarial vault reconstruction without helmet therapy for sagittal craniosynostosis.

开云体育世界杯赔率

Between 2003 and 2010, the authors prospectively observed 89 children less than 12 months old who were surgically treated for a diagnosis of isolated sagittal synostosis. The endoscopic procedure was offered starting in 2006. The data associated with length of stay, blood loss, transfusion rates, operating times, and cephalic indices were reviewed.

Results

There were 47 endoscopically treated patients with a mean age at surgery of 3.6 months and 42 patients with open-vault reconstruction whose mean age at surgery was 6.8 months. The mean follow-up time was 13 months for endoscopic versus 25 months for open procedures. The mean operating time for the endoscopic procedure was 88 minutes, versus 179 minutes for the open surgery. The mean blood loss was 29 ml for endoscopic versus 218 ml for open procedures. Three endoscopically treated cases (6.4%) underwent transfusion, whereas all patients with open procedures underwent transfusion, with a mean of 1.6 transfusions per patient. The mean length of stay was 1.2 days for endoscopic and 3.9 days for open procedures. Of endoscopically treated patients completing helmet therapy, the mean duration for helmet therapy was 8.7 months. The mean pre- and postoperative cephalic indices for endoscopic procedures were 68% and 76% at 13 months postoperatively, versus 68% and 77% at 25 months postoperatively for open surgery.

Conclusions

Endoscopically assisted strip craniectomy offers a safe and effective treatment for sagittal craniosynostosis that is comparable in outcome to calvarial vault reconstruction, with no increase in morbidity and a shorter length of stay.

Object

The surgical management of infants with sagittal synostosis has traditionally relied on open cranial vault remodeling (CVR) techniques; however, minimally invasive technologies, including endoscope-assisted craniectomy (EAC) repair followed by helmet therapy (HT, EAC+HT), is increasingly used to treat various forms of craniosynostosis during the 1st year of life. In this study the authors determined the costs associated with EAC+HT in comparison with those for CVR.

开云体育世界杯赔率

作者进行了回顾性病例对照analysis of 21 children who had undergone CVR and 21 who had undergone EAC+HT. Eligibility criteria included an age less than 1 year and at least 1 year of clinical follow-up data. Financial and clinical records were reviewed for data related to length of hospital stay and transfusion rates as well as costs associated with physician, hospital, and outpatient clinic visits.

Results

The average age of patients who underwent CVR was 6.8 months compared with 3.1 months for those who underwent EAC+HT. Patients who underwent EAC+HT most often required the use of 2 helmets (76.5%), infrequently required a third helmet (13.3%), and averaged 1.8 clinic visits in the first 90 days after surgery. Endoscope-assisted craniectomy plus HT was associated with shorter hospital stays (mean 1.10 vs 4.67 days for CVR, p < 0.0001), a decreased rate of blood transfusions (9.5% vs 100% for CVR, p < 0.0001), and a decreased operative time (81.1 vs 165.8 minutes for CVR, p < 0.0001). The overall cost of EAC+HT, accounting for hospital charges, professional and helmet fees, and clinic visits, was also lower than that of CVR ($37,255.99 vs $56,990.46, respectively, p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Endoscope-assisted craniectomy plus HT is a less costly surgical option for patients than CVR. In addition, EAC+HT was associated with a lower utilization of perioperative resources. Theses findings suggest that EAC+HT for infants with sagittal synostosis may be a cost-effective first-line surgical option.

Object

Deformational plagiocephaly (DP) is the leading cause of head shape abnormalities in infants. Treatment options include conservative measures and cranial molding. Pediatric neurosurgeons and craniofacial plastic surgeons have yet to agree on an ideal therapy, and no definable standards exist for initiating treatment with helmets. Furthermore, there may be differences between specialties in their perceptions of DP severity and need for helmet therapy.

开云体育世界杯赔率

Requests to participate in a web-based questionnaire were sent to diplomates of the American Board of Pediatric Neurological Surgery and US and Canadian members of the Pediatric Joint Section of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons and the American Cleft Palate–Craniofacial Association. Questions focused on educational background; practice setting; volume of DP patients; preferences for evaluation, treatment, follow-up; and incentives or deterrents to treat with helmet therapy. Six examples of varying degrees of DP were presented to delineate treatment preferences.

Results

Requests were sent to 302 neurosurgeons and 470 plastic surgeons, and responses were received from 71 neurosurgeons (24%) and 64 plastic surgeons (14%). The following responses represented the greatest variations between specialties: 1) 8% of neurosurgeons and 26% of plastic surgeons strongly agreed with the statement that helmet therapy is more beneficial than conservative therapy (p < 0.01); and 2) 25% of neurosurgeons and 58% of plastic surgeons would treat moderate to severe DP with helmets (p < 0.01).

Conclusions

Survey responses suggest that neurosurgeons are less likely to prescribe helmet therapy for DP than plastic surgeons. Parents of children with DP are faced with a costly treatment decision that may be influenced more strongly by referral and physician bias than medical evidence.