Endoscopic strip craniectomy with orthotic helmeting for safe improvement of head growth in children with Apert syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Bilateral coronal craniosynostosis in Apert syndrome is traditionally managed with open cranial vault remodeling procedures like fronto-orbital advancement (FOA). However, as minimally invasive procedures gain popularity, limited data exist to determine their efficacy in this syndromic population. This study examines whether endoscopic strip craniectomy (ESC) is inferior to FOA in correcting head growth in patients with Apert syndrome. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective review of children with Apert syndrome over a 23-year period. Postoperative head circumferences until 24 months of age were compared for patients treated with ESC versus FOA by using normative growth curves. Intraoperative and postoperative morbidity was compared between groups. RESULTS: The median postoperative follow-up for the FOA (n = 14) and ESC (n = 16) groups was 40 and 28.5 months, the median age at operation was 12.8 and 2.7 months, and the median operative time was 285 and 65 minutes, respectively (p < 0.001). The FOA group had significantly higher rates of blood transfusion, ICU admission, and longer hospital length of stay (p < 0.01). There were no statistically significant differences in premature reossification rates, complications, need for further procedures, or complaints of asymmetry. Compared to normative growth curves, all patients in both groups had head circumferences comparable to or above the 85th percentile at last follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Children with Apert syndrome and bilateral coronal craniosynostosis treated with ESC experience early normalization of head growth and cephalic index that is not inferior to those treated with FOA. Longer-term assessments are needed to determine long-term aesthetic results and the correlation between head growth and neurocognitive development in this population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".