Cited by 16Craniofacial Disorders and TreatmentsFetal and Pediatric Neurological DisordersPectus Deformity Diagnosis and Treatment

Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Isolated Sagittal Synostosis

Engel, Michael, Hoffmann, Juergen, Mühling, Joachim, Castrillón-Oberndorfer, Gregor, Seeberger, Robin, Freudlsperger, Christian·2012·Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

Abstract

Isolated fusion of the sagittal suture is the most prevalent form of craniosynostosis. Although the typical clinical appearance usually points the way to the right diagnosis, computed tomographic (CT) scans are still recommended as necessary tools for both the diagnosis of scaphocephaly and the preoperative planning. Because CT scans are accompanied by the biological effects of ionizing radiation, some authors have already postulated the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) especially because MRI seems to be valuable for detecting intracranial anomalies compared with CT scans. Hence, we investigated the preoperative MRIs of 42 children with isolated sagittal synostosis to evaluate the frequency of brain anomalies and their therapeutic consequences.In our study, 10 patients (23.8%) showed pathologic MRI findings such as ventricular dilatation and hypoplastic corpus callosum, whereas 32 patients (76.2%) had an unremarkable MRI except a pathognomonic secondary deformation of the brain caused by the abnormally shaped skull, which was present in all patients. Seven patients showed clinically significant symptoms including papilledema or psychomotoric developmental delay; however, the clinical appearance was not predictive for pathologic MRI findings and vice versa.As the detection of brain anomalies had no influence on the surgical procedure or led to any additive therapy in our patients, we conclude that evaluation of possible pathologic brain findings does not legitimate the general use of MRI in clinically normal children with isolated sagittal synostosis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/scs.0b013e3182543258

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Engel, M., Hoffmann, J., Mühling, J., Castrillón-Oberndorfer, G., Seeberger, R., & Freudlsperger, C.
Affiliations
University Hospital Heidelberg (DE)
Corresponding author
Engel, Michael
Venue
Journal of Craniofacial Surgery
Published
2012-07
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
e366-e369
ISSN
1049-2275 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2321980375
Cited by
16
References
7
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2
FWCI
1.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Craniofacial Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Surgery › Pectus Deformity Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
craniosynostosis, scaphocephaly, magnetic resonance imaging, brain anomalies, ventriculomegaly, hypoplastic corpus callosum, surgical planning, ionizing radiation, children, papilledema, psychomotor delay
MeSH terms
Cranial Sutures, Craniosynostoses, Female, Humans, Infant, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Retrospective Studies, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, 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