Download PDF
Cent Eur Neurosurg 2010; 71(2): 64-68
DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1220714
Original Article

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Surgical Technique and Validation of Outcome Assessment in Sagittal Synostosis

T. Psaras1 , M. U. Schuhmann1 , T. Bottler2 , M. Krimmel3 , M. Wolff4 , J. B. Honegger1 , B. E. Will1
  • 1Department of Neurosurgery, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
  • 2Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Private Practice Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Baden, Switzerland
  • 3Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
  • 4Department of Pediatrics, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
13 January 2010 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background: Aim of the study was to evaluate the outcome of children operated for sagittal synostosis, with special attention paid to the postoperative aesthetic result, as seen from the parents’ and the treating medical doctors’ perspective, and to assess the time point for operative correction.

Methods: A retrospective chart review of 87 patients operated over 15 years was performed. Data included age at the time of operation, perioperative complications, duration of hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, transfusion volume, neurological outcome, and postoperative skull growth. Aesthetic outcome was assessed at 6, 12 and 18 months after surgery separately by the treating medical team and the children's parents.

Results: Sagittal synostosis was diagnosed in 98.9% of cases in the first six months of life. We performed the same operative technique in all children with bilateral total removal of parietal bones. The median age at operation was 5 months. There was no correlation between age at the time of operation and blood loss (p<0.602). 5.7% of the children presented with significant postoperative skull asymmetries. All of these children had undergone operation in the first four months of life (p<0.01). The evaluation of the postoperative aesthetic outcome as seen by parents and doctors was highly convergent, with 79.3% of children in the excellent or good outcome group

Conclusions: Our results suggest that the feasible time period for the method used by us is around the 5th – 6th month of life, with satisfying results. With regard to the aesthetic outcome assessment we recommend our approach using validation by parents as a valuable new principle.

Key words

sagittal synostosis - aesthetic and functional outcome - perioperative complications - parental satisfaction

References

  • 1 Anderson FM, Geiger L. Craniosynostosis: a survey of 204 patients.  J Neurosurg. 1965;  22 229-233
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Bernardy M, Donauer E, Neuenfeldt D. Premature craniosynostosis. A retrospective analysis of a series of 52 cases.  Acta Neurochir. 1994;  128 88-100
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Breugem CC, Zeeman B. Retrospective study of nonsyndromic craniosynostosis treated over a 10-year period.  J Craniofac Surg. 1999;  2 140-148
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Boop FA, Shewmake K, Chadduck WM. Synostectomy versus complex cranioplasty for the treatment of sagittal synostosis.  Childs Nerv Syst. 1996;  12 371-375
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Colak A, Tahta K, Bertan V. et al . Craniosynostosis: A review of 143 surgically-treated cases.  Turk J Pediatrics. 1992;  34 231-238
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Denis D, Genitori L, Conrath J. et al . Ocular findings in children operated on for plagiocephaly and trigonocephaly.  Childs Nerv Syst. 1996;  12 683-689
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Epstein N, Epstein F, Newman G. Total vertex craniectomy for the treatment of sagittal synostosis.  Childs Nerv Syst. 1982;  12 371-375
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Fonseca RJ. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company 1991 6 pp 195-220
  • 9 Gault D, Renier D, Marchac D. et al . Intracranial pressure and intracranial volume in children with craniosynostosis.  J Craniofac Surg. 1990;  1 1-3
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Gault D, Renier D, Marchac D. et al . Intracranial volume in children with craniosynostosis.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 1990;  90 377-380
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Grätz KW, Locher MC, Carls FR. et al . Cranial development after corrective skull surgery in craniosynostosis.  Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir. 1998;  2 ((Suppl 1)) 49-51 [in German] 
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Guimarăes-Ferreira J, Gewalli F, David L. et al . Spring-mediated cranioplasty compared with the modified pi-plasty for sagittal synostosis.  Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2003;  37 208-215
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Hassler W, Zentner J. Radical Osteoclastic Craniectomy in Sagittal Synostosis.  . 1990;  27 539-543
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Jane JA, Edgerton MT, Futrell JW. et al . Immediate correction of sagittal synostosis.  J Neurosurg. 1978;  49 705-710
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Jimenez DF, Barone CM, MacGee ME. et al . Endoscopy-assisted wide-vertex craniectomy, barrel stave osteotomies, and postoperative helmet molding therapy in the management of sagittal suture craniosynostosis.  J Neurosurg. 2004;  100 ((5 Suppl Pediatrics)) 407-417
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Jones BM, Jani P, Bingham RM. et al . Complications in pediatric craniofacial surgery: An initial four year experience.  Br J Plast Surg. 1992;  45 ((3)) 225-231
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Kolk van der CA, Carlson BS, Robertson BC. et al . The occipital bar and internal osteosynthesis in the treatment of lambdoidal synostosis.  J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1993;  4 112-118
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Marsh JL. Metopic and sagittal synostosis: Intracranial volume measurements prior to and after cranioorbital reshaping in childhood (Discussion).  Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995;  96 310
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Maugans TA, MacComb JG, Levy ML. Surgical management of sagittal synostosis: a comparative analysis of strip craniectomy and calvarial vault remodeling.  Pediatr Neurosurg. 1997;  27 137-148
    Google Scholar
  • 20 MacComb JG. Occipital reduction-biparietal widening technique for correction of sagittal synostosis.  Pediatr Neurosurg. 1994;  27 137-148
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Mursch K, Brockmann K, Lang JK. et al . Visually evoked potentials in 52 children requiring repair of craniosynostosis.  Pediatr Neurosurg. 1998;  29 320-323
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Polley JW, Cherbel FT, Kim D. et al . Nonsyndromal craniosynostosis: longitudinal outcome following cranio-orbital reconstruction in infancy.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;  102 619-632
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Posnick JC, Armstrong D, Bite U. Metopic and sagittal synostosis: Intracranial volume measurements prior to and after cranio-orbital reshaping in childhood.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995;  96 299
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Posnick JC, Armstrong D, Bite U. Crouzon and Apert syndromes: Intracranial volume measurements before and after cranio-orbital reshaping in childhood.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995;  96 539-548
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Poole MD. Complications in craniofacial surgery.  Br J Plast Surg. 1988;  41 ((6)) 608-613
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Powirtowski H. Surgery of craniostenosis in advanced cases. In: Krayenbuhl H, et al. (eds) Advances and Technical Standards in Neurosurgery. New York Berlin Heidelberg: Springer 1974 1 pp 93-120
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Prader A, Largo RH, Molinari L. et al . Physical growth of Swiss children from birth to 20 years of age.  Helv Paediat Acta Suppl. 1998;  52 3-31
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Reinhart E, Reuther J, Collmann H. et al . Long-term outcome after corrective surgery of the neuro-viscerocranium of patients with simple and syndrome-related premature craniosynostosis.  Mund Kiefer Gesichts Chir. 1998;  2 ((Suppl 1)) 44-48 [in German] 
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Roden A, Marsh JL, Vannier MW. Cranial capacity in craniosynostosis. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on Cleft Palate and Related Craniofacial Anomalies. Jerusalem, Israel 1989: 61
  • 30 Shillito J, Matson D. Craniosynostosis; a review of 519 surgical patients.  Pediatrics. 1968;  41 829-853
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Shillito J. A plea for early operation for craniosynostosis.  Surg Neurol. 1992;  37 182-188
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Sloan GM, Wells KC, Raffel C. et al . Surgical treatment of craniosynostosis: outcome analysis of 250 consecutive patients.  Pediatrics. 1997;  100 ((1)) e2
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Stavrou P, Sgouros S, Willshaw HE. et al . Visual failure caused by raised intracranial pressure in craniosynostosis.  Childs Nerv Syst. 1997;  13 64-67
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Tuite GF, Chong WK, Evanson J. The effectiveness of papilledema as indicator of raised intracranial pressure in children with craniosynostosis.  . 1996;  38 272-278
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Whitaker LA, Bartlett SP, Shut L. et al . Craniosynostosis: an analysis of the timing, treatment and complications in 164 consecutive patients.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 1987;  80 195-206
    Google Scholar

Correspondence

Prof. Dr. M. U. Schuhmann

Department of Neurosurgery

University of Tübingen

Hoppe-Seyler-Straße 3

72076 Tübingen

Germany

Phone: +49/070/71 29 86 44 8

Fax: +49/070/71 29 44 04

Email: martin.schuhmann@med.uni-tuebingen.de