Current Trends in Management of Nonsyndromic Unilateral Coronal Craniosynostosis: A Cross-sectional Survey.
Journal
Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open
ISSN: 2169-7574
Titre abrégé: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101622231
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2019
May 2019
Historique:
received:
25
02
2019
accepted:
05
03
2019
entrez:
24
7
2019
pubmed:
25
7
2019
medline:
25
7
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Although the natural history of nonsyndromic unilateral coronal craniosynostosis has been extensively described, optimal management remains controversial due to lack of Level 1 evidence. This study aims to assess the current state of practice among craniofacial surgeons. Ninety-four craniofacial surgeons were approached to complete a survey consisting of 15 questions. Data were collected assessing surgeons' primary surgical indication, timing of intervention, preoperative imaging, and choice of technique for patients presenting with nonsyndromic unilateral coronal craniosynostosis. Choice of technique and timing of intervention in case of recurrence were also investigated. After 5 mailings, the response rate was 61%. The combination of both appearance and raised intracranial pressure was the primary indication for treatment for 73.2% of surgeons. Preoperative CT scan of the skull was "always" performed by 70.1% of respondents. Open surgical management was most commonly performed at 8-10 months of age (38.6%). Bilateral frontal craniectomy with remodeling of the supraorbital bandeau and frontal bone was the most common choice of procedure (84.2%). In case of mild to moderate and moderate to severe recurrences at 1 year of age, 89.5% and 47.4% of surgeons opted for conservative management, respectively. Optimal timing for repeat cranioplasty was after 4 years of age (65.5%). Overall, 43.4% quoted lack of evidence as the greatest obstacle to clinical decision-making when dealing with unilateral synostosis. This survey exposes the lack of consensus and the disparity of opinion among craniofacial surgeons regarding the management of nonsyndromic coronal synostosis, particularly in the setting of recurrence.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Although the natural history of nonsyndromic unilateral coronal craniosynostosis has been extensively described, optimal management remains controversial due to lack of Level 1 evidence. This study aims to assess the current state of practice among craniofacial surgeons.
METHODS
METHODS
Ninety-four craniofacial surgeons were approached to complete a survey consisting of 15 questions. Data were collected assessing surgeons' primary surgical indication, timing of intervention, preoperative imaging, and choice of technique for patients presenting with nonsyndromic unilateral coronal craniosynostosis. Choice of technique and timing of intervention in case of recurrence were also investigated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
After 5 mailings, the response rate was 61%. The combination of both appearance and raised intracranial pressure was the primary indication for treatment for 73.2% of surgeons. Preoperative CT scan of the skull was "always" performed by 70.1% of respondents. Open surgical management was most commonly performed at 8-10 months of age (38.6%). Bilateral frontal craniectomy with remodeling of the supraorbital bandeau and frontal bone was the most common choice of procedure (84.2%). In case of mild to moderate and moderate to severe recurrences at 1 year of age, 89.5% and 47.4% of surgeons opted for conservative management, respectively. Optimal timing for repeat cranioplasty was after 4 years of age (65.5%). Overall, 43.4% quoted lack of evidence as the greatest obstacle to clinical decision-making when dealing with unilateral synostosis.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This survey exposes the lack of consensus and the disparity of opinion among craniofacial surgeons regarding the management of nonsyndromic coronal synostosis, particularly in the setting of recurrence.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31333956
doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002229
pmc: PMC6571315
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e2229Références
J Craniofac Surg. 2014 Jul;25(4):1260-5
pubmed: 24469377
J Craniofac Surg. 2002 Jan;13(1):99-104
pubmed: 11887004
J Craniofac Surg. 2015 Sep;26(6):1812-7
pubmed: 26267575
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008 Feb;121(2):545-554
pubmed: 18300975
Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2016 Oct;61(5):732-739
pubmed: 27233949
J Neurosurg. 1998 Jan;88(1):77-81
pubmed: 9420076
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Jun;127(6):2397-2406
pubmed: 21311385
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014 May;133(5):1261-1275
pubmed: 24776557
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008 Apr;121(4 Suppl):1-11
pubmed: 18379381
Teratology. 1977 Jun;15(3):301-9
pubmed: 882919
J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2011 Jun;7(6):620-6
pubmed: 21631199
Childs Nerv Syst. 2012 Sep;28(9):1423-7
pubmed: 22872258
Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2016 Nov;24(4):517-530
pubmed: 27712818
Eur Radiol. 2009 Mar;19(3):687-92
pubmed: 18941755
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012 Jul;41(7):797-800
pubmed: 22510342
Childs Nerv Syst. 2013 Jun;29(6):985-95
pubmed: 23358908
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008 Mar;121(3):70e-76e
pubmed: 18317088
J Craniofac Surg. 2004 Sep;15(5):810-6; discussion 817-8
pubmed: 15346023
JAMA. 2012 May 2;307(17):1805-6
pubmed: 22550194
J Clin Neurosci. 2017 May;39:28-34
pubmed: 28279556
Am J Med Genet. 1995 Feb 13;55(4):500-4
pubmed: 7762595
J Craniofac Surg. 2006 Jul;17(4):623-5; discussion 626-8
pubmed: 16877903
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Mar;129(3):731-737
pubmed: 22373978
J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2010 Aug;6(2):193-7
pubmed: 20672943
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007 Oct;120(5):1327-1331
pubmed: 17898608
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008 Apr;121(4):170e-178e
pubmed: 18349596
Indian Pediatr. 2013 Jan 8;50(1):148-50
pubmed: 23396787