Cited by 28Craniofacial Disorders and TreatmentsPectus Deformity Diagnosis and TreatmentReconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques

Frontobiparietal remodeling with or without a widening bridge for sagittal synostosis: comparison of 2 cohorts for aesthetic and functional outcome

Open access
van Veelen, Marie-Lise C., Mihajlović, Dalibor, Dammers, Ruben, Lingsma, Hester, van Adrichem, Leon N. A., Mathijssen, Irene M. J.·2015·Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics

Abstract

OBJECT: Various techniques to correct sagittal synostosis have been described. The authors of this study assess the results of 2 techniques for late complete cranial remodeling and test the hypothesis that adding a widening bridge would improve outcome. METHODS: In this retrospective study, the authors evaluated patients with nonsyndromic sagittal synostosis—those who underwent frontobiparietal remodeling (FBR) and those who underwent modified FBR (MFBR) involving the introduction of a bony bridge to increase the width of the skull. Outcomes for both groups are described in terms of the aesthetic results assessed on photographs and any changes in the cranial index (CI) and head circumference over time, the presence of papilledema, and complaints of headache. The effect of the surgical technique on CI and head circumference over time was assessed using linear regression analysis, with adjustment for preoperative CI and head circumference. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients with isolated sagittal synostosis were included in this study: 35 underwent MFBR and 34 underwent the original technique of FBR. The mean follow-up period was 7 years. In the 1st year after surgery, mean CI improved by 9% in the FBR group and by 12% in the MFBR group. One year after surgery, CI in the MFBR group was on average 4.7% higher than that in the FBR group (p < 0.001). During follow-up, CI decreased in both groups; however, at all time points CI was significantly higher in the MFBR group than in the FBR group. The impact of surgical technique on CI was less important than the impact of preoperative CI (R 2= 0.26 vs 0.54), and this applied at all time points during follow-up. Head circumference declined during follow-up in both groups. It was influenced by preoperative head circumference, but not by surgical technique. Aesthetic outcome, prevalence of headache (42%), and papilledema (7%) were comparable in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Adding a widening bridge to late complete remodeling significantly improved CI and helped to prevent CI from decreasing in the long term. This addition did not affect the head circumference growth curve. Despite a mean head circumference remaining at +1 SD, patients continued to develop papilledema postoperatively (7%).

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 · 10.3171/2014.12.peds14260

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van Veelen, M.-L. C., Mihajlović, D., Dammers, R., Lingsma, H., van Adrichem, L. N. A., & Mathijssen, I. M. J.
Affiliations
  • Departments of Neurosurgery,
  • Public Health, and
  • Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Hand Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
Venue
Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics
Published
2015-07
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
86-93
ISSN
  • 1933-0707 (ISSN-L)
  • 1933-0715
OpenAlex
W2028753067
Cited by
27
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2
FWCI
1.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neurosurgery Pediatrics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
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, cranial remodeling, cranial index, head circumference, papilledema, headache, cosmetic outcome, nonsyndromic craniosynostosis, pediatric neurosurgery
MeSH terms
Beauty, Cephalometry, Craniosynostoses, Craniotomy, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Frontal Bone, Humans, Male, Papilledema, Parietal Bone, Postoperative Period, Retrospective Studies, Skull, Linear Models, Treatment Outcome, Orthopedic Procedures, Plastic Surgery Procedures, Recovery of Function

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