Evaluation of positional plagiocephaly: Conventional anthropometric measurement versus laser scanning method

Abstract

BackgroundThe incidence of plagiocephaly has increased in the 25 years since the “Back to Sleep” campaign in 1991 to prevent sudden infant death. Plagiocephaly is not considered to be a pathological condition. It is more of an esthetic impairment and could have potentially negative psychological or psychosocial consequences; therefore, treatment is recommended. The aim of this study is to compare conventional anthropometry and laser scanning – two different measurement methods – as diagnostic instruments for plagiocephaly. The present study also tests the measurement time of both methods and whether one method is easier on the patient than the other. Material and methodsA total of 44 children (21 girls, 23 boys) with a mean age of 8.8 months were involved in the present study. Of all patients, the following parameters were routinely evaluated using a standard protocol with the conventional anthropometric method and the scan method: head circumference, head length, head width, head diagonals, and distances ex-t. Furthermore, the time required to obtain measurements and the behavior of the children during measurement were documented. For statistical analysis, a t-test and a Wilcoxon test were used to analyze differences between the two methods. ResultsThe results for head circumference showed a mean of 441.5 mm for the anthropometric measurements and 441.6 mm for the scan method, with no significant difference between the two methods. A significant difference was found regarding the head width, head length, diagonals, and distance ex-t. The measurement process using the scan method needed a mean of 579.6 s in contrast to the manual anthropometric method, which required a mean time of 180.5 s. DiscussionIn comparison with the conventional anthropometric method, measurements made with a 3D laser scanner yield inconsistent results. Moreover, the current state of technology of 3D cephalometry has no advantages compared with the conventional anthropometric method. Disadvantages worth mentioning appear to be the higher technical outlay and the considerable acquisition, service, and maintenance costs.