Endoscopic Versus Open Total Vault Reconstruction of Sagittal Craniosynostosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sagittal craniosynostosis is the most common form of congenital cranial deformity. Surgical interventions are performed either open or endoscopic. Advancements in minimally invasive surgery have enabled the development of the endoscopic suturectomy technique. This is contrasted to the traditional open cranial vault reconstruction. There is a paucity of data comparing the head shape changes from both techniques. This study aims to compare the morphological outcome of endoscopic suturectomy versus total cranial vault reconstruction. METHODS: This is a retrospective comparative study involving 55 cases of sagittal craniosynostosis, 37 of which has open total cranial vault reconstruction and 18 had endoscopic suturectomy procedure. Preoperative and postoperative 3D photographs of both groups were analyzed and compared. The change in correction between preoperative and postoperative state was measured against a crowd-driven standard for acceptable head shape. RESULTS: Total cranial vault had higher percentage change between pre and postoperative cranial index than endoscopic suturectomy (14.7% versus 7.7%, P = 0.003). However, both techniques were able to achieve the minimum standard of 70% correction (TCV 107.5%, ES 100.4%, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Total cranial vault and endoscopic suturectomy are effective in correcting scaphocephaly among children with sagittal craniosynostosis. Additionally, both techniques are able to achieve a percentage correction that exceeds the 70% benchmark established by the lay public.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".