The incidence of craniosynostosis in the Netherlands, 1997–2007
Abstract
Objects The first aim of this study was to determine the incidence of craniosynostosis, metopic synostosis and sagittal synostosis in the Netherlands from 1997 to 2007. The second aim was to study whether a shift in the proportion of different subtypes of craniosynostosis had taken place in the Netherlands during the study period.Methods Patients of all six units performing craniofacial procedures in the Netherlands that met the inclusion criteria participated in the study (n = 927). A logistic regression in a weight sample was used to assess the differences in both the proportion and the incidence of different subtypes of craniosynostosis each year. The angle of the metopic ridge was compared using a regression analysis.Results The incidence of craniosynostosis increased from 2.6 per 10 000 live births in 1997 to 6.4 in 2007. The incidence of metopic synostosis showed a significant increase of 6% each year (p = 0.029). We observed a significant change in the proportion of metopic synostosis, with a mean percentage of 20% during 1997-2000 and 27% during 2001-2007 (p = 0.046). The incidence of sagittal synostosis annually increased by 3% (p = 0.89). We did not find a significant change regarding the proportion of sagittal synostosis during 2000-2001. No significant difference in the severity of metopic synostosis was found between 1997-2000 and 2001-2004.Conclusion The incidence of craniosynostosis, metopic synostosis and sagittal synostosis is 6.4; 1.9; and 2.8 per 10,000 live births, respectively. Both the incidence and the proportion of metopic synostosis have significantly increased over the study period, concluding that metopic synostosis is on the rise.
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?
The incidence of single suture synostosis increased noticeably and constantly in recent years, with a dynamic change in the frequency of subtypes.
“The incidence of single suture synostosis increased noticeable constant in recent years. Moreover, there is a dynamic change in the frequency of the different subtypes of this clinical picture at the same time [21–24].”
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 [23]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 33 · Cited by 77
- Authors
- Kweldam, C. F., van der Vlugt, J. J., & van der Meulen, J. J. N. M.
- Affiliations
- Erasmus MC (NL)
- ORCID
- Kweldam, C.F.
- Venue
- Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-05
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 583-588
- ISSN
- 1748-6815 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2124824256
- Cited by
- 77
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 1.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Plastic Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery (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 › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Spinal Dysraphism and Malformations
- Keywords
- craniosynostosis, metopic synostosis, sagittal synostosis, incidence trends, congenital craniofacial anomalies, Netherlands
- MeSH terms
- Craniosynostoses, Female, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Male, Netherlands, Retrospective Studies, Incidence
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