CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 102Craniofacial Disorders and TreatmentsPectus Deformity Diagnosis and TreatmentReconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Endoscopic Versus Open Repair for Craniosynostosis in Infants Using Propensity Score Matching to Compare Outcomes: A Multicenter Study from the Pediatric Craniofacial Collaborative Group

Thompson, Douglas R., Zurakowski, David, Haberkern, Charles M., Stricker, Paul A., Meier, Petra M.·2018·Anesthesia & Analgesia
DOI 10.1213/ane.0000000000002454
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The North American Pediatric Craniofacial Collaborative Group (PCCG) established the Pediatric Craniofacial Surgery Perioperative Registry to evaluate outcomes in infants and children undergoing craniosynostosis repair. The goal of this multicenter study was to utilize this registry to assess differences in blood utilization, intensive care unit (ICU) utilization, duration of hospitalization, and perioperative complications between endoscopic-assisted (ESC) and open repair in infants with craniosynostosis. We hypothesized that advantages of ESC from single-center studies would be validated based on combined data from a large multicenter registry. METHODS: Thirty-one institutions contributed data from June 2012 to September 2015. We analyzed 1382 infants younger than 12 months undergoing open (anterior and/or posterior cranial vault reconstruction, modified-Pi procedure, or strip craniectomy) or endoscopic craniectomy. The primary outcomes included transfusion data, ICU utilization, hospital length of stay, and perioperative complications; secondary outcomes included anesthesia and surgical duration. Comparison of unmatched groups (ESC: N = 311, open repair: N = 1071) and propensity score 2:1 matched groups (ESC: N = 311, open repair: N = 622) were performed by conditional logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Imbalances in baseline age and weight are inherent due to surgical selection criteria for ESC. Quality of propensity score matching in balancing age and weight between ESC and open groups was assessed by quintiles of the propensity scores. Analysis of matched groups confirmed significantly reduced utilization of blood (26% vs 81%, P < .001) and coagulation (3% vs 16%, P < .001) products in the ESC group compared to the open group. Median blood donor exposure (0 vs 1), anesthesia (168 vs 248 minutes) and surgical duration (70 vs 130 minutes), days in ICU (0 vs 2), and hospital length of stay (2 vs 4) were all significantly lower in the ESC group (all P < .001). Median volume of red blood cell administered was significantly lower in ESC (19.6 vs 26.9 mL/kg, P = .035), with a difference of approximately 7 mL/kg less for the ESC (95% confidence interval for the difference, 3-12 mL/kg), whereas the median volume of coagulation products was not significantly different between the 2 groups (21.2 vs 24.6 mL/kg, P = .73). Incidence of complications including hypotension requiring treatment with vasoactive agents (3% vs 4%), venous air embolism (1%), and hypothermia, defined as <35°C (22% vs 26%), was similar between the 2 groups, whereas postoperative intubation was significantly higher in the open group (2% vs 10%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter study of ESC versus open craniosynostosis repair represents the largest comparison to date. It demonstrates striking advantages of ESC for young infants that may result in improved clinical outcomes, as well as increased safety.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1213/ane.0000000000002454

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 21 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 102

Related

Metadata

Authors
Thompson, D. R., Zurakowski, D., Haberkern, C. M., Stricker, P. A., & Meier, P. M.
Affiliations
  • Seattle Children's Hospital (US)
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
  • Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (US)
Corresponding author
  • Thompson, Douglas R.
  • Haberkern, Charles M.
ORCID
Venue
Anesthesia & Analgesia
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2018-03
Volume
126
Issue
3
Pages
968-975
ISSN
0003-2999 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1213/ane.0000000000002454
OpenAlex
W2754226741
Cited by
100
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 11
FWCI
4.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Anesthesia & Analgesia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Craniofacial Disorders and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pectus Deformity Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Reconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
Keywords
craniosynostosis, infants, perioperative outcomes, blood transfusion, intensive care utilization, length of hospital stay, perioperative complications, strip craniectomy, operative time, anesthesia duration, propensity score matching
MeSH terms
Craniosynostoses, Endoscopy, Female, Humans, Infant, Male, Prospective Studies, Registries, Treatment Outcome, Craniofacial Abnormalities, Plastic Surgery Procedures, Propensity Score

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