Evaluation of Long-term Outcomes of Facial Sensation following Cranial Vault Reconstruction for Craniosynostosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cranial vault reshaping to correct craniosynostosis in infants may injure terminal branches of the trigeminal nerve, namely the supraorbital, supratrochlear, zygomaticofacial, and zygomaticotemporal nerves, especially if a fronto-orbital advancement is performed. Despite numerous studies demonstrating successful esthetic outcome after FOA, there are no long-term studies assessing facial sensation after possible damage to these nerves as the result of surgery. METHODS: A cross-sectional case-control research design was used to evaluate facial sensory threshold in the trigeminal branches after cranial vault reconstruction in children with isolated, nonsyndromic metopic, and unicoronal craniosynostosis, compared with those with sagittal craniosynostosis and age-matched nonaffected controls. Study participants were recruited from the Hospital for Sick Children between the ages of 6 and 18 years. Sensory outcome was determined using the Weinstein Enhanced Sensory Test, the Ten Test, and self-reported facial sensibility function questionnaire. RESULTS: The sensory outcomes of 28 patients and 16 controls were examined at an average age of 9.6 years and 10.3 years, respectively. No subjective or objective sensory deficit was noted in supraorbital, supratrochlear, zygomaticofacial, or zygomaticotemporal nerve distributions between groups. Qualitative reports of facial sensibility function indicated no difference in subjective sensation, protective sensation, or motor behavior between groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that while sensory nerve injury during routine FOA may occur, it does not result in a quantifiable nor clinically significant long-term sensory deficit threshold. Patients do not develop long-term neuropathic pain following surgical intervention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".