MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7119517599 · doi:10.3171/2025.8.peds25315

Quantifying the risks: a systematic review and proportional meta-analysis of the perioperative complications of posterior cranial vault distraction osteogenesis in patients with craniosynostosis

2025· article· en· W7119517599 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohammed A. Fouda, Thomas A. Imahiyerobo, Caitlin E. Hoffman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Pediatrics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCraniofacial Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerioperativeDistraction osteogenesisCraniosynostosisCranial vaultAdverse effectDistraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Posterior cranial vault distraction osteogenesis (PCVDO) is a well-established surgical technique for increasing intracranial volume and correcting cranial deformities in children with craniosynostosis. Despite its efficacy, PCVDO is associated with the risk for several perioperative complications. In this systematic review and proportional meta-analysis, the authors aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of complications associated with PCVDO, including overall complications, infection, CSF leakage, device-related complications, premature device removal, and unplanned returns to the operating room. Additionally, they sought to identify sources of heterogeneity among the studies and evaluate the influence of key clinical and surgical moderators-such as patient age, syndromic status, distraction parameters, elevated intracranial pressure, hydrocephalus, Chiari malformation, syrinx, and prior surgical interventions-on complication rates. METHODS: A systematic review and proportional meta-analysis were conducted, following the PRISMA guidelines. The MEDLINE/PubMed database was reviewed for English-language, peer-reviewed studies published between 2009 and 2025 that reported perioperative complications in pediatric patients (age < 18 years) with craniosynostosis who had undergone PCVDO and included at least 2 patients. Excluded publications were single case reports, editorials, technical notes, reviews, preclinical or animal studies, and studies not meeting these criteria. Data from the included studies were compiled into a comprehensive spreadsheet to facilitate qualitative and quantitative analyses. A quality assessment of all studies was conducted utilizing the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients experiencing any complication. Secondary outcomes comprised rates of infection and wound-related events, CSF leakage, device-related complications, premature device removal, and unplanned returns to the operating room. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies were included in this analysis. The pooled overall complication rate was 26.3%. Infection and wound-related complications were most common (10.4%), followed by CSF leakage (6.7%) and device-related complications (6.0%). Premature device removal and return to the operating room occurred in 4.0% and 9.9% of patients, respectively. Meta-regression analysis revealed that younger age was significantly associated with an increased risk of CSF leakage and premature device removal. Shorter latency periods were associated with a higher risk of CSF leakage and return to the operating room. CONCLUSIONS: While PCVDO is effective in managing craniosynostosis, it is associated with a considerable risk of complications. Age and latency period are significant predictors of adverse outcomes. Innovations in device design and surgical protocols are warranted to optimize the safety and efficacy of the procedure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.049
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgery PediatricsSame topicCraniofacial Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207