Cited by 84Craniofacial Disorders and TreatmentsPectus Deformity Diagnosis and TreatmentReconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques

Surgical Management of Sagittal Synostosis: A Comparative Analysis of Strip Craniectomy and Calvarial Vault Remodeling

Maugans, Todd A., McComb, Gordon, Levy, Michael L.·2008·Pediatric Neurosurgery

Abstract

Although surgical treatment of sagittal synostosis has become normative, the procedure of choice is still debated. This retrospective analysis, during a 10-year period (1986-1995) at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, compares the more conservative strip craniectomy (SC) procedure with a more extensive occipital reduction-biparietal widening calvarial vault remodeling (CVR) technique for the management of sagittal synostosis. SC was performed in 72 patients (61%) and CVR in 46 (39%). Patients undergoing CVR were older (mean 5.3 vs. 3.0 months, p< 0.01), the procedure time longer (mean 126 min vs. 72 min, p < 0.01), intraoperative blood loss greater (mean 243 vs. 54 cm3, p < 0.01), and the frequency of intraoperative blood transfusion increased (100 vs. 38%, p < 0.01; mean volume 357 vs. 51 cm3, p < 0.01) compared to patients undergoing SC. No significant intraoperative complications occurred in either group. The total time of hospitalization was similar (mean 4.4 vs. 3.8 days, p = 0.02). No neurological, hematological, or transfusion-related complications or deaths were encountered in either group. Cosmetic outcomes were significantly better in the CVR group with 79% rated as excellent compared to 41% in the SC group (p < 0.01). Fifty-nine percent of the SC patients manifested bony defects at last follow-up visit. Two SC patients required reopera-tion for poor cosmetic outcomes; CVR was successfully employed in both cases. These findings demonstrate that CVR is superior to SC in providing immediate and lasting correction of calvarial deformities secondary to sagittal synostosis. The optimal age at time of surgery is <6 months; however, CVR can be utilized throughout infancy, while SC becomes progressively less effective after 6 months of age. No significant complications were observed in either group, despite the increased operative manipulation and greater incidence of blood transfusion in the CVR patients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000121241

Cites

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maugans, T. A., McComb, G., & Levy, M. L.
Affiliations
  • Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Venue
Pediatric Neurosurgery
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2008-03-07
Volume
27
Issue
3
Pages
137-148
ISSN
  • 1016-2291 (ISSN-L)
  • 1423-0305
OpenAlex
W2117750181
Cited by
84
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pediatric Neurosurgery (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 › Surgery › Reconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
Keywords
sagittal synostosis, strip craniectomy, surgical outcomes, cosmetic outcome, intraoperative blood transfusion, age at surgery, bony defects, reoperation
MeSH terms
Craniotomy, Diseases in Twins, Female, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Male, Postoperative Complications, Retrospective Studies, Skull, Synostosis

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