Endoscope-assisted Craniectomy Research Articles

Comparison of 2 Sagittal Craniosynostosis Repair Techniques: Spring-Assisted Surgery Versus Endoscope-Assisted Craniectomy With Helmet Molding Therapy.

This study compares anthropometric outcomes of 2 sagittal synostosis repair techniques: spring-assisted surgery and endoscope-assisted craniectomy with molding helmet therapy. Patients undergoing spring-assisted surgery (n = 27) or endoscope-assisted craniectomy with helmet therapy (n = 40) at separate institutions were retrospectively reviewed. Pre- and 1-year postoperative computed tomography (CT) or laser scans were analyzed for traditional cranial index (CI), adjusted cranial index (aCI), and cranial vault volume (CVV). Nine patient-matched scans were analyzed for measurement consistency. The spring-assisted group was older at both time points (P < .050) and spring-assisted group CVV was larger preoperatively and postoperatively (P < .01). However, the change in CVV did not differ between the groups (P = .210). There was no difference in preoperative CI (helmet vs spring: 70.1 vs 71.2, P = .368) between the groups. Postoperatively, helmet group CI (77.0 vs 74.3, P = .008) was greater. The helmet group also demonstrated a greater increase in CI (6.9 vs 3.1, P < .001). The proportion of patients achieving CI of 75 or greater was not significantly different between the groups (helmet vs spring: CI, 65% vs 52%, P = .370). There was no detectable bias in CI between matched CT and laser scans. Differences were identified between scan types in aCI and CVV measurements; subsequent analyses used corrected CVV and aCI measures for laser scan measures. Both techniques had equivalent proportions of patients achieving normal CI, comparable effects on cranial volume, and similar operative characteristics. The study suggests that there may be greater improvement in CI in the helmet group. However, further research should be performed.

Endoscopic treatment of combined metopic-sagittal craniosynostosis.

Combined metopic-sagittal craniosynostosis is traditionally treated with open cranial vault remodeling and fronto-orbital advancement, sometimes in multiple operations. Endoscopic treatment of this multisuture synostosis presents a complex challenge for the surgeon and orthotist. The authors retrospectively analyzed the preoperative and 1-year postoperative CT scans of 3 patients with combined metopic-sagittal synostosis, all of whom were treated with simultaneous endoscope-assisted craniectomy of the metopic and sagittal sutures followed by helmet therapy. Established anthropometric measurements were applied to assess pre- and postoperative morphology, including cranial index and interfrontal divergence angle (IFDA). Patients' measurements were compared to those obtained in 18 normal controls. Two boys and one girl underwent endoscope-assisted craniectomy at a mean age of 81 days. The mean preoperative cranial index was 0.70 (vs control mean of 0.82, p = 0.009), corrected postoperatively to a mean of 0.82 (vs control mean of 0.80, p = 0.606). The mean preoperative IFDA was 110.4° (vs control mean of 152.6°, p = 0.017), corrected postoperatively to a mean of 139.1° (vs control mean of 140.3°, p = 0.348). The mean blood loss was 100 mL and the mean length of stay was 1.7 days. No patient underwent reoperation. The mean clinical follow-up was 3.4 years. Endoscope-assisted craniectomy with helmet therapy is a viable single-stage treatment option for combined metopic-sagittal synostosis, providing correction of the stigmata of trigonoscaphocephaly, with normalization of the cranial index and IFDA.

Cost comparison of surgical management of nonsagittal synostosis: traditional open versus endoscope-assisted techniques.

Management of craniosynostosis at an early age is important for mitigating the risk of abnormal cranial development, but treatment can result in significant expenses. Previous research has shown that endoscope-assisted craniectomy (EAC) is less costly than open cranial vault remodeling (CVR) for patients with sagittal synostosis. The aim of this study was to strengthen the existing body of healthcare cost research by elucidating the charges associated with open and endoscopic treatment for patients with nonsagittal synostosis. The authors performed a retrospective analysis of data obtained in 41 patients who underwent open CVR and 38 who underwent EAC with postoperative helmet therapy for nonsagittal, single-suture craniosynostosis (metopic, coronal, and lambdoid) between 2008 and 2018. All patients were < 1 year of age at the time of surgery and had a minimum 1 year of follow-up. Inpatient charges, physician fees, helmet charges, and outpatient clinic visits in the 1st year were analyzed. The mean ages of the children treated with EAC and open CVR were 3.5 months and 8.7 months, respectively. Patients undergoing EAC with postoperative helmet therapy required more outpatient clinic visits in the 1st year than patients undergoing CVR (4 vs 2; p < 0.001). Overall, 13% of patients in the EAC group required 1 helmet, 30% required 2 helmets, 40% required 3 helmets, and 13% required 4 or more helmets; the mean total helmeting charges were $10,072. The total charges of treatment, including inpatient charges, physician fees, outpatient clinic visit costs, and helmet charges, were significantly lower for the EAC group than they were for the open CVR group ($50,840 vs $95,588; p < 0.001). Despite the additional charges for postoperative helmet therapy and the more frequent outpatient visits, EAC is significantly less expensive than open CVR for patients with metopic, coronal, and lambdoid craniosynostosis. In conjunction with the existing literature on clinical outcomes and perioperative resource utilization, these data support EAC as a cost-minimizing treatment for eligible patients with nonsagittal synostosis.

Examining the need for routine intensive care admission after surgical repair of nonsyndromic craniosynostosis: a preliminary analysis.

OBJECTIVEAt British Columbia Children's Hospital (BCCH), pediatric patients with nonsyndromic craniosynostosis are admitted directly to a standard surgical ward after craniosynostosis surgery. This study's purpose was to investigate the safety of direct ward admission and to examine the rate at which patients were transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU), the cause for the transfer, and any patient characteristics that indicate higher risk for ICU care.METHODSThe authors retrospectively reviewed medical records of pediatric patients who underwent single-suture or nonsyndromic craniosynostosis repair from 2011 to 2016 at BCCH. Destination of admission from the operating room (i.e., ward or ICU) and transfer to the ICU from the ward were evaluated. Patient characteristics and operative factors were recorded and analyzed.RESULTSOne hundred fourteen patients underwent surgery for single-suture or nonsyndromic craniosynostosis. Eighty surgeries were open procedures (cranial vault reconstruction, frontoorbital advancement, extended-strip craniectomy) and 34 were minimally invasive endoscope-assisted craniectomy (EAC). Sutures affected were sagittal in 66 cases (32 open, 34 EAC), coronal in 20 (15 unilateral, 5 bilateral), metopic in 23, and multisuture in 5. Only 5 patients who underwent open procedures (6%) were initially admitted to the ICU from the operating room; the reasons for direct admission were as follows: the suggestion of preoperative elevated intracranial pressure, pain control, older-age patients with large reconstruction sites, or a significant medical comorbidity. Overall, of the 107 patients admitted directly to the ward (75 who underwent an open surgery, 32 who underwent an EAC), none required ICU transfer.CONCLUSIONSOverall, the findings of this study suggest that patients with nonsyndromic craniosynostosis can be managed safely on the ward and do not require postoperative ICU admission. This could potentially increase cost savings and ICU resource utilization.

A comparison of costs associated with endoscope-assisted craniectomy versus open cranial vault repair for infants with sagittal synostosis

The surgical management of infants with sagittal synostosis has traditionally relied on open cranial vault remodeling (CVR) techniques; however, minimally invasive technologies, including endoscope-assisted craniectomy (EAC) repair followed by helmet therapy (HT, EAC+HT), is increasingly used to treat various forms of craniosynostosis during the 1st year of life. In this study the authors determined the costs associated with EAC+HT in comparison with those for CVR. The authors performed a retrospective case-control analysis of 21 children who had undergone CVR and 21 who had undergone EAC+HT. Eligibility criteria included an age less than 1 year and at least 1 year of clinical follow-up data. Financial and clinical records were reviewed for data related to length of hospital stay and transfusion rates as well as costs associated with physician, hospital, and outpatient clinic visits. The average age of patients who underwent CVR was 6.8 months compared with 3.1 months for those who underwent EAC+HT. Patients who underwent EAC+HT most often required the use of 2 helmets (76.5%), infrequently required a third helmet (13.3%), and averaged 1.8 clinic visits in the first 90 days after surgery. Endoscope-assisted craniectomy plus HT was associated with shorter hospital stays (mean 1.10 vs 4.67 days for CVR, p < 0.0001), a decreased rate of blood transfusions (9.5% vs 100% for CVR, p < 0.0001), and a decreased operative time (81.1 vs 165.8 minutes for CVR, p < 0.0001). The overall cost of EAC+HT, accounting for hospital charges, professional and helmet fees, and clinic visits, was also lower than that of CVR ($37,255.99 vs $56,990.46, respectively, p < 0.0001). Endoscope-assisted craniectomy plus HT is a less costly surgical option for patients than CVR. In addition, EAC+HT was associated with a lower utilization of perioperative resources. Theses findings suggest that EAC+HT for infants with sagittal synostosis may be a cost-effective first-line surgical option.