Cranial ultrasound is a reliable first step imaging in children with suspected craniosynostosis
Abstract
Purpose Skull radiography (SR) and Computed Tomography (CT) are still proposed as the first-line imaging choice for the diagnosis of craniosynostosis (CS) in children with abnormal head shape, but both techniques expose infants to ionizing radiation. Several studies shown that ultrasound may play an important role in the diagnosis of craniosynostosis. The aim of our study is to assess the diagnostic accuracy of cranial ultrasound scan (CUS) and confirm if it is a reliable first step imaging evaluation for the diagnosis of craniosynostosis in newborn.Method A cohort of 196 infants (122/74 males/females), with a mean age of 4 months, clinically suspected to have abnormal closure of cranial sutures, were firstly examined by CUS and then referred to neuroradiologists to perform volumetric CT scan if the suspicion of stenosis was ecographically confirmed; otherwise, a routine follow-up and physical treatment was performed, to observe the evolution of the head shape.Results Of the 196 children studied by CUS, only two had inconclusive studies due to age limitation (>12 months). Thirty children were diagnosed with cranial synostosis at CUS and verified by CT; all the CUS results were confirmed, except two cases, that were revealed as false positives in the starting phase of the study. Twelve patients with very prominent head deformity and negative CUS underwent CT, which confirmed the CUS results in all of them; one case of closure of both temporal sutures, not studied by CUS, was documented by CT. All the 148 children with poor clinical suspicion and negative CUS underwent just a prolonged clinical follow-up. In all of them, a progressive normalization of head shape was observed, and the craniosynostosis was excluded on a clinical base.Conclusions CUS is a highly specific and sensitive imaging technique. In referral centers, expert hands can use it as a reliable first-step screening for infants younger than 1 year, suspected to have a craniosynostosis, thus avoiding unnecessary exposure to ionizing radiation. The "golden age" to obtain the best CUS results is under 6 months of life. Because the method is operator-dependent and there is a learning curve, a case centralization is advisable.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Rozovsky et al. (2015) found complete concordance between cranial ultrasound and radiography in assessing sagittal sutures, with CUS sensitivity 100% and specificity 98%.
“Their study revealed complete concordance between CUS and radiography in assessing especially the sagittal sutures. Overall, the results demonstrated that CUS possesses high sensitivity (100%) and specificity (98%), reliably detecting suture abnormalities while eliminating the risks associated with ionising radiation.”
From Developments in diagnostic and surgical techniques in children with sagittal suture craniosynostosis: a systematic review spanning the last 30 years (2025) · cites this paper as [35]
The disadvantages of sonography are that findings are dependent on the diagnostic physician and difficult to interpret in older children.
“The disadvantages are that the findings are dependent on the diagnostic physician and are difficult to interpret in older children due to the fact that some of the sutures are already physiologically closed or the disease may be at an already advanced stage [34, 35].”
From Developments in diagnostic and surgical techniques in children with sagittal suture craniosynostosis: a systematic review spanning the last 30 years (2025) · cites this paper as [35]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 43 · Cited by 39
- Authors
- Pogliani, L., Zuccotti, G. V., Furlanetto, M., Giudici, V., Erbetta, A., Chiapparini, L., & Valentini, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Milan (IT)
- Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Pogliani, L.
- Venue
- Child's Nervous System
- Published
- 2017-06-03
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1545-1552
- ISSN
- 0256-7040 (ISSN-L)
- 1433-0350
- OpenAlex
- W2621252467
- Cited by
- 39
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3
- FWCI
- 1.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Child s Nervous System (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Craniofacial Disorders and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pectus Deformity Diagnosis and Treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Child Abuse and Related Trauma
- Keywords
- craniosynostosis, cranial ultrasound, diagnostic accuracy, infants, cranial sutures, ionizing radiation avoidance, volumetric CT, first-line imaging, false positives
- MeSH terms
- Cranial Sutures, Craniosynostoses, Female, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Male, Ultrasonography
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review