MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Long-Term Morphological Evaluation of Conservatively Managed Patients With Single Suture Craniosynostosis

2020· article· en· W3162850160 on OpenAlexaff
Hari Iyer, Gaby Doumit

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery Global Open · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCraniofacial Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCraniosynostosisMedicineCraniofacialDeformitySurgeryFibrous jointSynostosisCraniofacial surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Surgical treatment for single-suture craniosynostosis is controversial, with some authors casting doubt over its benefits for intracranial pressure1 and behavioral development.2 In this optic, cranioplasty is a purely aesthetic intervention wherein the benefits may not outweigh the risks. There is a paucity of literature objectively evaluating the long-term aesthetic results of unoperated children with craniosynostosis. Our purpose is to clarify the long-term evolution of the cranial deformity in patients with single suture craniosynostosis and thus facilitate decision-making for families faced with the prospect of surgical intervention for their child. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted at our institution to identify unoperated patients with single-suture craniosynostosis followed with standardized photographs. Data on demographics, type of craniosynostosis, and cranial deformity were collected. Patient photos were then presented to surgeons trained in craniofacial assessment for evaluation of the severity of deformity on a 5-point Likert scale and candidacy for surgery over time. Laypeople also evaluated the severity of deformity over time and determined their readiness to accept corrective surgery if offered on a similar scale. RESULTS: Nine unoperated patients with metopic craniosynostosis and 11 with sagittal craniosynostosis were identified. Sixty-five percent of patients were male, mean age at initial presentation was 36.7 months, and mean photographic follow-up was 83.9 months. Craniofacial surgeons rated the initial deformity as moderate (median 3/5, interquartile range [IQR], 2) and would have offered surgery in 70.0% of cases. They found the deformity to be mild at long-term follow-up (4/5; IQR, 2), a significant improvement (P < 0.001). Surgeons stated that only 64.0% of cases would have needed surgery initially given their evolution and were willing to offer surgery at long-term follow-up in 48.0% of cases. Surgeons over 65 years of age were more likely to offer surgery initially (91.8% versus 33.3%, P < 0.0001) and at long-term follow-up (64.7% versus 11.1%; P < 0.001) than those 45–64. No differences were found in evolution of deformity or willingness to operate when accounting for affected suture. Lay evaluators found the initial deformity moderately acceptable (4/5; IQR, 1) but were very unwilling to accept surgery at presentation (1/5; IQR, 0). They found the deformity to be significantly more acceptable at last follow-up (median 5/5; IQR, 1; P < 0.001) and were equally unwilling to accept surgery at long-term follow-up (1/5; IQR, 0). No significant differences in opinion regarding severity of deformity, change in deformity or willingness to accept surgery were found when accounting for affected suture, participant sex, or parenthood. CONCLUSIONS: In the long-term, the cranial deformity associated with unoperated single suture craniosynostosis improves moderately in the eyes of craniofacial surgeons and laypeople alike. Older surgeons may favor surgery but up to 6.0% of children who undergo operative correction may have good aesthetic outcome without this. REFERENCES: 1. Bristol RE, Lekovic GP, Rekate HL. The effects of craniosynostosis on the brain with respect to intracranial pressure. Semin Pediatr Neurol; 2004;11:262–267. 2. Speltz ML, Collett BR, Wallace ER, et al. Behavioral adjustment of school-age children with and without single-suture craniosynostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016;138:435–445.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery Global OpenSame topicCraniofacial Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207