Is There an Advantage to Minimizing Surgery in Scaphocephaly? A Study on Extended Strip Craniotomy Versus Extensive Cranial Vault Remodeling. Issue 6 (September 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: De Praeter, Mania; Nadjmi, Nasser; Reith, Florence C.M.; Vercruysse, Herman; Menovsky, Tomas
• Is Part Of: Journal of craniofacial surgery. Volume 30:Issue 6(2019)
• Publication Date: 2019-09
• Subjects: Cosmetic outcome -- extended strip craniectomy -- sagittal synostosis -- scaphocephaly -- total cranial vault remodeling; Facial bones -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Skull -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Face -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; 617.52
• DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000005516
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1049-2275

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Different techniques have been described to correct scaphocephaly. In authors' institution, total cranial vault remodeling (TCVR) was the standard of care. To limit the extent of surgery and the need for transfusion, the technique was minimized to extended strip craniectomy (ESC) without helmet therapy. This retrospective study compares outcome and morbidity between ESC and TCVR. Methods: Twenty-seven scaphocephalic patients were included. The ESC was performed in 9 patients between 2012 and 2014, and TCVR in 17 patients between 2008 and 2016. Data on blood loss and transfusion rate, duration of surgery, length of hospital stay (LOS), head circumference, and cephalic index (CI) were collected retrospectively. A cosmetic outcome score (COS) was developed to rate esthetic outcome since CI is a limited and crude measurement of cosmetic outcome. Results: The LOS was identical in both groups, but duration of surgery was significantly shorter in ESC ( P < 0.0001). Transfusion rate appeared higher in the TCVR group, but differences were not significant ( P = 0.11). Cosmetic outcome appeared slightly worse in the ESC group, but results were not significantly different ( P = 0.66). There was, however, a significant improvement in postoperative CI in the TCVR group ( P < 0.0001). Conclusion: The only advantage of ESC was the reduced duration of surgery, but this could not prevent the need for transfusion in this group of patients. The improvement of the CI was significantly less pronounced after ESC, but the COS was not significantly worse in the ESC group. The scar and LOS were similar in both groups. Therefore, our findings indicate that minimizing TCVR to ESC without helmet therapy does not provide significant advantages. Abstract : Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text