Cited by 20Craniofacial Disorders and TreatmentsFetal and Pediatric Neurological DisordersPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics

Prenatal ultrasound parameters in single-suture craniosynostosis

Open access
Cornelissen, Martijn J., Apon, Inge, van der Meulen, Jacques J. N. M., Groenenberg, Irene A. L., Kraan – van der Est, Mieke N., Mathijssen, Irene M. J., Bonsel, Gouke J., Cohen – Overbeek, Titia E.·2018·The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Although single-suture craniosynostosis is diagnosed sporadically during pregnancy, timely referral is critical for its treatment. Additionally, craniosynostosis leads to increased maternofetal trauma during birth. In the Netherlands, 95% of pregnant women receive a standard ultrasound at around 20 weeks of gestation, potentially an ideal setting for detecting craniosynostosis prenatally. To enhance the prenatal detection of the metopic and the sagittal suture synostosis, we wished to identify new screening parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data of the 20-week anomaly scan in trigonocephaly patients (n = 41), scaphocephaly patients (n = 41), and matched controls (n = 82). We measured six different cranial dimensions, including head circumference, biparietal diameter, and occipito-frontal diameter, defining the cephalic index as the ratio between biparietal and occipito-frontal diameter. RESULTS: Prenatal biometric measurements did not differ significantly between trigonocephaly patients and controls. Although significantly lower in scaphocephaly patients (0.76 versus 0.79; p = .000), the cephalic index by itself is not appropriate for screening at 20 weeks of gestation. Longitudinal analysis suggests that a deflection in BPD curve is found in scaphocephaly patients, starting at 20 weeks of gestation. CONCLUSIONS: Prenatal biometric measurements do not differ significantly between trigonocephaly patients and controls. The CI is lower in scaphocephaly patients. A deflection in BPD curve should be followed by 3 D imaging of the cranial sutures.

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 · 10.1080/14767058.2017.1335706

Cites

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?

  • Ultrasound is non-invasive and widely available, but CI alone is unreliable, and the feasibility of advanced imaging in routine screening requires further study.

    “While ultrasound is non-invasive and widely available, CI alone is unreliable, and the feasibility of advanced imaging in routine screening requires further study [36, 38].”

    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 [36]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says CI at 20 weeks is too limited to use alone and that 3D imaging of cranial sutures is not currently feasible for routine screening because it is time-consuming and requires substantial expertise. The paper reports widespread use of standard ultrasound in the Netherlands, but does not address its non-invasive nature or say that further study is needed to determine the feasibility of routine 3D imaging. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Cornelissen et al. and other authors highlighted the potential of prenatal ultrasound, with BPD deviations suggesting improved accuracy using 3D imaging.

    “Cornelissen et al. and other authors highlighted the potential of prenatal ultrasound, with BPD deviations suggesting improved accuracy using 3D imaging.”

    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 [36]

    The Abstract and Discussion say that a deflection in the BPD curve should prompt 3D imaging of the cranial sutures, supporting the proposed use of prenatal ultrasound. The paper does not establish that 3D imaging improves diagnostic accuracy; the Discussion also says routine 3D screening is not currently feasible. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Cornelissen et al. found that a growth deviation in biparietal diameter from week 20 onward suggested 3D imaging of cranial sutures may be beneficial in suspected cases.

    “However, a growth deviation in BPD from week 20 onward suggested that 3D imaging of cranial sutures may be beneficial in suspected cases [36].”
  • Cornelissen et al. (2018) found that foetuses with scaphocephaly had a significantly lower cephalic index at 20 weeks (0.76 vs. 0.79; p = 0.000), but CI alone was not reliable for screening.

    “Findings showed that foetuses with scaphocephaly had a significantly lower CI (0.76 vs. 0.79; p = 0.000), but CI alone was not reliable for screening at 20 weeks.”

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 29 · Cited by 20

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Ruiz-Correa S, Starr JR, Lin HJ, et al. New severity indi- ces for quantifying single-suture metopic craniosynos- tosis. Neurosurgery. 2008;63:318-324. discussion 24-25.

Authors
Cornelissen, M. J., Apon, I., van der Meulen, J. J. N. M., Groenenberg, I. A. L., Kraan – van der Est, M. N., Mathijssen, I. M. J., Bonsel, G. J., & Cohen – Overbeek, T. E.
Affiliations
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Handsurgery, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands;
  • Foundation Prenatal Screening Southwest region of the Netherlands, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Obstetrics and Prenatal Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands;
Corresponding author
Cornelissen, Martijn J.
Venue
The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine
Published
2017-06-14
Volume
31
Issue
15
Pages
2050-2057
ISSN
  • 1476-4954 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-7058
OpenAlex
W2618043449
Cited by
20
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2
FWCI
1.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
Funders
NutsOhra Foundation (–053)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Craniofacial Disorders and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Fetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Keywords
single-suture craniosynostosis, prenatal ultrasound, trigonocephaly, scaphocephaly, cephalic index, biparietal diameter, head circumference, prenatal screening
MeSH terms
Anthropometry, Craniosynostoses, Female, Humans, Infant, Pregnancy, Retrospective Studies, Ultrasonography, Prenatal

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