Craniofacial Dysmorphology in Unilateral Coronal Synostosis Using Three-Dimensional Landmark-Based Analysis With Generalized Procrustes Superimposition.
Journal
The Journal of craniofacial surgery
ISSN: 1536-3732
Titre abrégé: J Craniofac Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9010410
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
pubmed:
6
9
2020
medline:
8
6
2021
entrez:
5
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Geometric morphometric analysis with Procrustes superimposition is an advanced computational tool that can be used to quantify dynamic changes in complex three-dimensional structures. The present study couples high resolution CT imaging with a Geometric Morphometric approach in order to further understand the complex dysmorphology that occurs in unilateral coronal synostosis (UCS). Forty-one UCS patients and 41 age- and sex-matched controls received high-resolution CT imaging. Thirty-one anatomical landmarks were identified on each imaging set. A geometric morphometric workflow was used to perform a Procrustes superimposition to register landmarks into a common space. Procrustes-aligned landmarks were used to derive angle calculations, lengths, and other anatomical measurements. Three-dimensional coordinates were also used to perform a principal components analysis (PCA). Unilateral coronal synostosis patients exhibited significant angular deviation at the levels of the inferior skull base, mid-posterior fossa, and vertex. Both left- and right-sided UCS patients showed increased lengthening in the transverse (left-right) dimension, exhibiting increased length between the left and right EAC (P = 0.047). Conversely, UCS patients revealed shortening in the midline AP dimension as evidenced by the decreased Nasal root-Lambda (P < 0.0001) and Nasal root-superior dorsum sellae (P = 0.01) distances compared with controls. PCA revealed that 25.26% of variation in shape among the patients sampled to be driven by flattening of the skull and that18.93% of variation was driven by right-sided deformity and mediolateral expansion. Significant dysmorphology between UCS patients and controls was quantified using Geometric Morphometric approach, which may be useful in further characterizing the dynamic craniofacial changes in UCS.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Geometric morphometric analysis with Procrustes superimposition is an advanced computational tool that can be used to quantify dynamic changes in complex three-dimensional structures. The present study couples high resolution CT imaging with a Geometric Morphometric approach in order to further understand the complex dysmorphology that occurs in unilateral coronal synostosis (UCS).
METHODS
METHODS
Forty-one UCS patients and 41 age- and sex-matched controls received high-resolution CT imaging. Thirty-one anatomical landmarks were identified on each imaging set. A geometric morphometric workflow was used to perform a Procrustes superimposition to register landmarks into a common space. Procrustes-aligned landmarks were used to derive angle calculations, lengths, and other anatomical measurements. Three-dimensional coordinates were also used to perform a principal components analysis (PCA).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Unilateral coronal synostosis patients exhibited significant angular deviation at the levels of the inferior skull base, mid-posterior fossa, and vertex. Both left- and right-sided UCS patients showed increased lengthening in the transverse (left-right) dimension, exhibiting increased length between the left and right EAC (P = 0.047). Conversely, UCS patients revealed shortening in the midline AP dimension as evidenced by the decreased Nasal root-Lambda (P < 0.0001) and Nasal root-superior dorsum sellae (P = 0.01) distances compared with controls. PCA revealed that 25.26% of variation in shape among the patients sampled to be driven by flattening of the skull and that18.93% of variation was driven by right-sided deformity and mediolateral expansion.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Significant dysmorphology between UCS patients and controls was quantified using Geometric Morphometric approach, which may be useful in further characterizing the dynamic craniofacial changes in UCS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32890158
pii: 00001665-202102000-00008
doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000006787
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
16-20Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 by Mutaz B. Habal, MD.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Références
2013; Adams DC, Otárola-Castillo E. geomorph: an r package for the collection and analysis of geometric morphometric shape data. 4:393–399.
Anantheswar YN, Venkataramana NK. Pediatric craniofacial surgery for craniosynostosis: our experience and current concepts: Part -1. J Pediatr Neurosci 2009; 4:86–99.
Baweja K, Sun AH, Sawh-Martinez R, et al. Temporal progression of craniofacial dysmorphology in unilateral coronal synostosis: a mechanistic hypothesis. J Craniofac Surg 2018; 29:1174–1180.
2012; Brusatte SL, Sakamoto M, Montanari S, et al. The evolution of cranial form and function in theropod dinosaurs: insights from geometric morphometrics. 25:365–377.
Fabbri M, Mongiardino Koch N, Pritchard AC, et al. The skull roof tracks the brain during the evolution and development of reptiles including birds. Nat Ecol Evol 2017; 1:1543–1550.
2018; Felice RN, Goswami A. Developmental origins of mosaic evolution in the avian cranium. 115:555–560.
Goswami A. Cranial modularity shifts during mammalian evolution. Am Nat 2006; 168:270–280.
Harcourt-Smith WEH, Tallman M, Frost SR, et al. Analysis of selected hominoid joint surfaces using laser scanning and geometric morphometrics: a preliminary report, in Sargis EJ, Dagosto M (eds): Mammalian Evolutionary Morphology: A Tribute to Frederick S. Szalay. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2008: 373–383
Harvati K. 3-D geometric morphometric analysis of temporal bone landmarks in Neanderthals and modern humans, in Elewa AMT (ed): Morphometrics: Applications in Biology and Paleontology. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2004:245–258
Heuzé Y, Boyadjiev SA, Marsh JL, et al. New insights into the relationship between suture closure and craniofacial dysmorphology in sagittal nonsyndromic craniosynostosis. J Anat 2010; 217:85–96.
2012; Heuzé Y, Martínez-Abadías N, Stella JM, et al. Unilateral and bilateral expression of a quantitative trait: asymmetry and symmetry in coronal craniosynostosis. 318:109–122.
James Rohlf F, Marcus LF. A revolution morphometrics. Trends Ecol Evol 1993; 8:129–132.
Janis CM, Napoli JG, Billingham C, et al. Proximal humerus morphology indicates divergent patterns of locomotion in extinct giant kangaroos. J Mamm Evol [published ahead of print January 16, 2020] doi: 10.1007/s10914-019-09494-5.
doi: 10.1007/s10914-019-09494-5
2018; Jones KE, Angielczyk KD, Polly PD, et al. Fossils reveal the complex evolutionary history of the mammalian regionalized spine. 361:1249–1252.
Kim HJ, Roh HG, Lee IW. Craniosynostosis: updates in radiologic diagnosis. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2016; 59:219–226.
Masserano B, Woo AS, Skolnick GB, et al. The temporal region in unilateral coronal craniosynostosis: fronto-orbital advancement versus endoscopy-assisted strip craniectomy. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2018; 55:423–429.
2009; Mitteroecker P, Gunz P. Advances in Geometric Morphometrics. 36:235–247.
Persing JA, Jane JA, Shaffrey M. Virchow and the pathogenesis of craniosynostosis: a translation of his original work. Plast Reconstr Surg 1989; 83:738–742.
Rice DP. Craniofacial sutures. Development, disease and treatment. Preface Front Oral Biol 2008; 12 (xi):
Rohlf FJ, Slice D. Extensions of the procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst Biol 1990; 39:40–59.
Slater BJ, Lenton KA, Kwan MD, et al. Cranial sutures: a brief review. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 21:170e–178e.
Srivilasa C, Zhao L, Patel PK, et al. Statistical shape analysis of metopic craniosynostosis: a preliminary study. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2006; 1:4066–4069.
2019; Watanabe A, Fabre A-C, Felice RN, et al. Ecomorphological diversification in squamates from conserved pattern of cranial integration. 116:14688–14697.