Head Shape After Sagittal Craniosynostosis Surgery: Open Versus Endoscopic Strip Craniectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Nonsyndromic sagittal craniosynostosis is treated surgically to improve skull cosmesis and to decrease the risk of raised intracranial pressure. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of two current surgical techniques for craniosynostosis treatment, open and endoscopic strip craniectomy. Methods: A single institution retrospective chart review was conducted of patients with nonsyndromic sagittal craniosynostosis treated surgically from 2011 to 2016. Patients were divided into two groups based on surgical technique: open or endoscopic strip craniectomy. The head shape was assessed using pre- and postoperative cephalic index (CI). Complications and operative details were compared. Mean absolute CI over time and 95% confidence intervals were graphed. Results: A total of 51 children (36 male, 15 female; 13 open, 38 endoscopic) were included with an average length of follow-up of 27.2 months (range 4-60). The median age at surgery was 4.0 months for open and 3.0 months for endoscopic. There was no significant difference in preoperative CI between endoscopic and open groups (0.67 vs 0.66). The largest improvements in CI were seen 3 to 6 months postoperatively. There was a significant improvement in postoperative CI for both groups (endoscopic 0.75, P = .02; open = 0.74, P < .01). From maximal postoperative CI to >2 year follow up there was no significant regression in CI for the endoscopic group ( P = .12) and a small regression for the open group (−0.02, P = .01). There were no transfusions, brain injuries, or deaths. Patients in the endoscopic group had significantly less blood loss intraoperatively ( P = .01) and a significantly shorter duration of hospital stay compared to the open group ( P < .001). Conclusions: Endoscopic and open surgical techniques are both effective treatments for nonsyndromic sagittal synostosis, with no difference in initial postoperative CI. These findings support the use of either technique and corroborate previous literature.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".