Cited by 64Craniofacial Disorders and TreatmentsChild Abuse and Related TraumaFetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders

Cranial Ultrasound as a First-Line Imaging Examination for Craniosynostosis

Rozovsky, Katya, Udjus, Kristin, Wilson, Nagwa, Barrowman, Nicholas James, Simanovsky, Natalia, Miller, Elka·2016·Pediatrics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Radiography, typically the first-line imaging study for diagnosis of craniosynostosis, exposes infants to ionizing radiation. We aimed to compare the accuracy of cranial ultrasound (CUS) with radiography for the diagnosis or exclusion of craniosynostosis. METHODS: Children aged 0 to 12 months who were assessed for craniosynostosis during 2011–2013 by using 4-view skull radiography and CUS of the sagittal, coronal, lambdoid, and metopic sutures were included in this prospective study. Institutional review board approval and parental informed consent were obtained. CUS and radiography were interpreted independently and blindly by 2 pediatric radiologists; conflicts were resolved in consensus. Sutures were characterized as closed, normal, or indeterminate. Correlation between CUS and radiography and interreader agreement were examined for each suture. RESULTS: A total of 126 children (82 boys, 64.5%) ages 8 to 343 days were included. All sutures were normal on CUS and radiography in 115 patients (93.7%); craniosynostosis of 1 suture was detected in 8 (6.3%, 5 sagittal, 2 metopic, 1 coronal). In 3 cases the metopic suture was closed (n = 2) or indeterminate on CUS (n = 1) but normally closed on radiography. CUS sensitivity was 100%, specificity 98% (95% confidence interval 94%–100%). Reader agreement was 100% for sagittal, coronal, and lambdoid sutures (κ = 0.80); after consensus, disagreement remained on 3 metopic sutures. CONCLUSIONS: In this series, CUS could be safely used as a first-line imaging tool in the investigation of craniosynostosis, reducing the need for radiographs in young children. Additional assessment may be required for accurate assessment of the metopic suture.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1542/peds.2015-2230

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 32 · Cited by 64

Authors
Rozovsky, K., Udjus, K., Wilson, N., Barrowman, N. J., Simanovsky, N., & Miller, E.
Affiliations
  • Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
  • Department of Medical Imaging, and
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • Hadassah Medical Center (IL)
Venue
Pediatrics
Published
2016-02-01
Volume
137
Issue
2
Pages
e20152230-e20152230
ISSN
  • 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-4275
OpenAlex
W2392116128
Cited by
64
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4
FWCI
4.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • PEDIATRICS (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Craniofacial Disorders and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Child Abuse and Related Trauma
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Fetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
Keywords
craniosynostosis, cranial ultrasound, skull radiography, diagnostic accuracy, metopic suture, sagittal suture, coronal suture, lambdoid suture, interobserver agreement
MeSH terms
Craniosynostoses, Female, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Male, Prospective Studies, Radiography, Sensitivity and Specificity, Skull, Ultrasonography, Observer Variation, Single-Blind Method

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