Cited by 17Craniofacial Disorders and TreatmentsPectus Deformity Diagnosis and TreatmentReconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques

Endoscopic treatment of sagittal suture synostosis — a critical analysis of current management strategies

Open access
Fassl, Verena, Ellermann, Laura, Reichelt, Gabriele, Pape, Phillipe, Blecher, Christoph, Hoffmann, Christian, Ringel, Florian, Al-Nawas, Bilal +2 more·2022·Neurosurgical Review

Abstract

While many centers nowadays offer minimally invasive techniques for the treatment of single suture synostosis, surgical techniques and patient management vary significantly. We provide an overview of how scaphocephaly treated with endoscopic techniques is managed in the reported series and analyze the crucial steps that need to be dealt with during the management process. We performed a review of the published literature including all articles that examined sagittal-suture synostosis treated with endoscopic techniques as part of single- or multicenter studies. Fourteen studies reporting results of 885 patients were included. We identified 5 key steps in the management of patients. A total of 188 patients were female and 537 male (sex was only specified in 10 articles, for 725 included patients, respectively). Median age at surgery was between 2.6 and 3.9 months with a total range from 1.5 to 7.0 months. Preoperative diagnostics included clinical and ophthalmologic examinations as well as neuropsychological and genetic consultations if needed. In 5 publications, a CT scan was routinely performed. Several groups used anthropometric measurements, mostly the cephalic index. All groups analyzed equally recommended to perform endoscopically assisted craniosynostosis surgery with postoperative helmet therapy in children < 3 months of age, at least for non-syndromic cases. There exist significant variations in surgical techniques and patient management for children treated endoscopically for single suture sagittal synostosis. This heterogeneity constitutes a major problem in terms of comparability between different strategies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10143-022-01762-y

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Springs must be removed in a separate procedure once the treatment goal has been achieved.

    “In addition, they must be removed in a separate procedure once the treatment goal has been achieved [61, 74, 75].”

    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 [74]

    The Discussion > Surgery passage says that spring-assisted surgery requires a second procedure to remove the springs. It does not specify that removal occurs once the treatment goal has been achieved; the follow-up passages discussing treatment goals concern helmet therapy, not springs. Page numbers were not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Spring-assisted cranioplasty requires a secondary procedure for spring removal.

    “In contrast, Rodgers et al. reported that while the technique yielded modest CI improvement, it required a secondary procedure for spring removal [61, 74, 75] and carried a risk of complications, including cerebrospinal fluid leaks and reoperations, in a cohort of 100 cases [63].”
  • SMC compared with SC showed a longer hospitalisation period.

    “The results of SMC compared with SC showed comparable transfusion-free hospital courses, but a longer hospitalisation period was observed.”

    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 [74]

    In General considerations > Step 4: Postoperative management (page unavailable), the paper says hospital stays were very similar across the endoscopic series it reviewed, with discharge after one day on average. Discussion > Surgery (page unavailable) says spring-assisted surgery was not part of that series. The copy does not compare SMC with SC on hospital stay or transfusion-free courses. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Spring-mediated cranioplasty (SMC) compared with strip craniectomy (SC) showed comparable transfusion-free hospital courses.

    “The results of SMC compared with SC showed comparable transfusion-free hospital courses, but a longer hospitalisation period was observed.”

    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 [74]

    The Discussion > Surgery passage says spring-assisted surgery was not part of the reviewed series; its statement that results are similar to those of endoscopic procedures does not address transfusion-free hospital courses. The Step 3: Surgery transfusion table and Step 4: Postoperative management hospital-stay passage report findings for the reviewed procedures, but neither compares SMC with SC on transfusions or length of stay. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fassl, V., Ellermann, L., Reichelt, G., Pape, P., Blecher, C., Hoffmann, C., Ringel, F., Al-Nawas, B., Heider, J., & Ottenhausen, M.
Affiliations
University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
Corresponding author
Ottenhausen, Malte
Venue
Neurosurgical Review
Published
2022-04-06
Volume
45
Issue
4
Pages
2533-2546
ISSN
  • 0344-5607 (ISSN-L)
  • 1437-2320
OpenAlex
W4225875623
Cited by
17
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 2
FWCI
0.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neurosurgical Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Gutenberg Open Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Gutenberg Open Science (cc-by)
Funders
Universitätsmedizin der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz
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 › Surgery › Reconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
Keywords
sagittal synostosis, endoscopic craniosynostosis surgery, scaphocephaly, helmet therapy, preoperative diagnosis, cephalic index, anthropometry, pediatric neurosurgery, surgical technique variation, syndromic craniosynostosis
MeSH terms
Child, Cranial Sutures, Craniosynostoses, Craniotomy, Endoscopy, Female, Humans, Infant, Male, Postoperative Period, Sutures, Treatment Outcome

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