Endoscopic strip craniectomy with molding helmet therapy versus spring-assisted cranioplasty for nonsyndromic single-suture sagittal craniosynostosis: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic strip craniectomy with postoperative molding helmet therapy (ESC-H) and spring-assisted cranioplasty (SAC) are commonly used minimally invasive techniques for correction of nonsyndromic sagittal craniosynostosis, but it is unclear which, if either, is superior. Therefore, the authors undertook a systematic review to compare ESC-H with SAC for the surgical management of nonsyndromic single-suture sagittal craniosynostosis. METHODS: Studies were identified through a systematic and comprehensive search of four databases (Embase, MEDLINE, and two databases in the Cochrane Library). Databases were searched from inception until February 19, 2021. Pediatric patients undergoing either ESC-H or SAC for the management of nonsyndromic single-suture sagittal craniosynostosis were included. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses, single-patient case reports, mixed cohorts of nonsyndromic and syndromic patients, mixed cohorts of different craniosynostosis types, and studies in which no outcomes of interest were reported were excluded. Outcomes of interest included reoperations, blood transfusion, complications, postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) admission, operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and cephalic index. Pooled summary cohort characteristics were calculated for each outcome of interest. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The study was reported in accordance with the 2020 PRISMA statement. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were eligible for inclusion in the review, including 1094 patients, of whom 605 (55.3%) underwent ESC-H and 489 (44.7%) underwent SAC for nonsyndromic sagittal craniosynostosis. There was no difference between the pooled estimates of the ESC-H and SAC groups for operative time, length of stay, estimated blood loss, and cephalic index. There was no difference between the groups for reoperation rate and complication rate. However, ESC-H was associated with a higher blood transfusion rate and higher postoperative ICU admission. CONCLUSIONS: The available literature does not demonstrate superiority of either ESC-H or SAC, and outcomes are broadly similar for the treatment of nonsyndromic sagittal craniosynostosis. However, the evidence is limited by single-center retrospective studies with low methodological quality. There is a need for international multicenter randomized controlled trials comparing both techniques to gain definitive and generalizable data.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".