title: Assessing long-term outcomes of open and endoscopic sagittal synostosis reconstruction using three-dimensional photography.
abstract: Sagittal synostosis has been successfully managed with numerous surgical techniques. Nevertheless, few data on long-term outcomes exist to justify use of one surgical technique over another. In this study, we compared children with surgically corrected sagittal synostosis to their age-matched control subjects to assess the longevity of their corrections. Furthermore, the outcomes of open repairs were compared with endoscopic repairs.Following institutional review board approval, three-dimensional photographs of patients who underwent surgical reconstruction for nonsyndromic sagittal synostosis were analyzed to determine biparietal and anterior-posterior diameter, circumference, cephalic index, cranial vault volume, cranial height, and forehead inclination. Thirteen patients who had undergone open repair, including 6 total cranial vault and 7 modified-pi reconstructions, and 6 patients who had undergone endoscopic strip craniectomy with barrel-stave osteotomies and postoperative helmeting were compared with nonsynostotic age-matched control subjects. Mean follow-up was 97.5 months after open and 48.9 months after endoscopic repair. Student t tests were used for analysis. In the second arm of this study, 33 patients who had undergone endoscopic repair were compared with the 13 patients who had undergone open repair; mean follow-up was 24.8 months after endoscopic repair. Linear regression models were used to adjust for age and sex.After comparing three-dimensional photographs of children who were more than 3 years postoperative from surgical correction for sagittal synostosis with their age-matched control subjects, no statistically significant differences were found in any of the measured parameters. In addition, no differences were detected between open reconstruction versus endoscopic repair, suggesting equivalence in final results for both procedures.
authors.affiliation: From the *Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, and †Department of Neurosurgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri; and ‡Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
authors.forename: Minh-Bao
authors.initials: MB
authors.lastname: Le
authors.forename: Kamlesh
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Patel
authors.forename: Gary
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Skolnick
authors.forename: Sybill
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Naidoo
authors.forename: Matthew
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Smyth
authors.forename: Alex
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Kane
authors.forename: Albert S
authors.initials: AS
authors.lastname: Woo
mesh_terms: D000367:Age Factors; D016022:Case-Control Studies; D002508:Cephalometry / Q000379:methods; D003398:Craniosynostoses / Q000601:surgery*; D003399:Craniotomy / Q000379:methods; D004724:Endoscopy / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D005546:Forehead / Q000473:pathology; D006260:Head Protective Devices; D006801:Humans; D021621:Imaging, Three-Dimensional / Q000379:methods*; D007223:Infant; D008137:Longitudinal Studies; D008297:Male; D010294:Parietal Bone / Q000002:abnormalities* / Q000601:surgery; D010781:Photography / Q000379:methods*; D019651:Plastic Surgery Procedures / Q000379:methods*; D016896:Treatment Outcome