Endoscopic Versus Open Repair for Craniosynostosis in Infants Using Propensity Score Matching to Compare Outcomes: A Multicenter Study from the Pediatric Craniofacial Collaborative Group. (March 2018)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- Endoscopic Versus Open Repair for Craniosynostosis in Infants Using Propensity Score Matching to Compare Outcomes: A Multicenter Study from the Pediatric Craniofacial Collaborative Group. (March 2018)
- Main Title:
- Endoscopic Versus Open Repair for Craniosynostosis in Infants Using Propensity Score Matching to Compare Outcomes
- Authors:
- Thompson, Douglas R.
Zurakowski, David
Haberkern, Charles M.
Stricker, Paul A.
Meier, Petra M.
Bannister, Carolyn
Benzon, Hubert
Binstock, Wendy
Bosenberg, Adrian
Brzenski, Alyssa
Budac, Stefan
Busso, Veronica
Capehart, Samantha
Chiao, Franklin
Cladis, Franklyn
Collins, Michael
Cusick, Jordan
Dabek, Rachel
Dalesio, Nicholas
Falcon, Ricardo
Fernandez, Allison
Fernandez, Patrick
Fiadjoe, John
Gangadharan, Meera
Gentry, Katherine
Glover, Chris
Goobie, Susan
Gries, Heike
Griffin, Allison
Groenewald, Cornelius Botha
Hajduk, John
Hall, Rebecca
Hansen, Jennifer
Hetmaniuk, Mali
Hsieh, Vincent
Huang, Henry
Ingelmo, Pablo
Ivanova, Iskra
Jain, Ranu
Koh, Jeffrey
Kowalczyk-Derderian, Courtney
Kugler, Jane
Labovsky, Kristen
Martinez, José Luis
Mujallid, Razaz
Muldowney, Bridget
Nguyen, Kim-Phuong
Nguyen, Thanh
Olutuye, Olutoyin
Soneru, Codruta
Petersen, Timothy
Poteet-Schwartz, Kim
Reddy, Srijaya
Reid, Russell
Ricketts, Karene
Rubens, Daniel
Skitt, Rochelle
Sohn, Lisa
Staudt, Susan
Sung, Wai
Syed, Tariq
Szmuk, Peter
Taicher, Brad
Tetreault, Lisa
Watts, Rheana
Wong, Karen
Young, Vanessa
Zamora, Lillian
… (more) - Abstract:
- Abstract : BACKGROUND: The North American Pediatric Craniofacial Collaborative Group (PCCG) established the Pediatric Craniofacial Surgery Perioperative Registry to evaluate outcomes in infants and children undergoing craniosynostosis repair. The goal of this multicenter study was to utilize this registry to assess differences in blood utilization, intensive care unit (ICU) utilization, duration of hospitalization, and perioperative complications between endoscopic-assisted (ESC) and open repair in infants with craniosynostosis. We hypothesized that advantages of ESC from single-center studies would be validated based on combined data from a large multicenter registry. METHODS: Thirty-one institutions contributed data from June 2012 to September 2015. We analyzed 1382 infants younger than 12 months undergoing open (anterior and/or posterior cranial vault reconstruction, modified-Pi procedure, or strip craniectomy) or endoscopic craniectomy. The primary outcomes included transfusion data, ICU utilization, hospital length of stay, and perioperative complications; secondary outcomes included anesthesia and surgical duration. Comparison of unmatched groups (ESC: N = 311, open repair: N = 1071) and propensity score 2:1 matched groups (ESC: N = 311, open repair: N = 622) were performed by conditional logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Imbalances in baseline age and weight are inherent due to surgical selection criteria for ESC. Quality of propensity score matching in balancingAbstract : BACKGROUND: The North American Pediatric Craniofacial Collaborative Group (PCCG) established the Pediatric Craniofacial Surgery Perioperative Registry to evaluate outcomes in infants and children undergoing craniosynostosis repair. The goal of this multicenter study was to utilize this registry to assess differences in blood utilization, intensive care unit (ICU) utilization, duration of hospitalization, and perioperative complications between endoscopic-assisted (ESC) and open repair in infants with craniosynostosis. We hypothesized that advantages of ESC from single-center studies would be validated based on combined data from a large multicenter registry. METHODS: Thirty-one institutions contributed data from June 2012 to September 2015. We analyzed 1382 infants younger than 12 months undergoing open (anterior and/or posterior cranial vault reconstruction, modified-Pi procedure, or strip craniectomy) or endoscopic craniectomy. The primary outcomes included transfusion data, ICU utilization, hospital length of stay, and perioperative complications; secondary outcomes included anesthesia and surgical duration. Comparison of unmatched groups (ESC: N = 311, open repair: N = 1071) and propensity score 2:1 matched groups (ESC: N = 311, open repair: N = 622) were performed by conditional logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Imbalances in baseline age and weight are inherent due to surgical selection criteria for ESC. Quality of propensity score matching in balancing age and weight between ESC and open groups was assessed by quintiles of the propensity scores. Analysis of matched groups confirmed significantly reduced utilization of blood (26% vs 81%, P < .001) and coagulation (3% vs 16%, P < .001) products in the ESC group compared to the open group. Median blood donor exposure (0 vs 1), anesthesia (168 vs 248 minutes) and surgical duration (70 vs 130 minutes), days in ICU (0 vs 2), and hospital length of stay (2 vs 4) were all significantly lower in the ESC group (all P < .001). Median volume of red blood cell administered was significantly lower in ESC (19.6 vs 26.9 mL/kg, P = .035), with a difference of approximately 7 mL/kg less for the ESC (95% confidence interval for the difference, 3–12 mL/kg), whereas the median volume of coagulation products was not significantly different between the 2 groups (21.2 vs 24.6 mL/kg, P = .73). Incidence of complications including hypotension requiring treatment with vasoactive agents (3% vs 4%), venous air embolism (1%), and hypothermia, defined as <35°C (22% vs 26%), was similar between the 2 groups, whereas postoperative intubation was significantly higher in the open group (2% vs 10%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter study of ESC versus open craniosynostosis repair represents the largest comparison to date. It demonstrates striking advantages of ESC for young infants that may result in improved clinical outcomes, as well as increased safety. … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- Anesthesia & analgesia. Volume 126:Number 3(2018)
- Journal:
- Anesthesia & analgesia
- Issue:
- Volume 126:Number 3(2018)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 126, Issue 3 (2018)
- Year:
- 2018
- Volume:
- 126
- Issue:
- 3
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2018-0126-0003-0000
- Page Start:
- Page End:
- Publication Date:
- 2018-03
- Subjects:
- Anesthesiology -- Periodicals
Anesthesia
Anesthesiology
Analgesia
Analgesics
Anesthesiology -- Periodicals
617.9605 - Journal URLs:
- http://gateway.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&MODE=ovid&PAGE=toc&D=ovft&AN=00000539-000000000-00000 ↗
http://journals.lww.com/anesthesia-analgesia/Pages/default.aspx ↗
http://www.anesthesia-analgesia.org ↗
http://journals.lww.com ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002454 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 0003-2999
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - 0900.500000
British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library STI - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 8990.xml