Spring-Assisted Cranioplasty in Unicoronal Synostosis: Analysis of Outcomes

Background: Spring-assisted cranioplasty and successful long-term outcomes for sagittal synostosis has been well described in recent literature. However, there is a paucity of data regarding the application of springs to unicoronal synostosis. Unicoronal synostosis (UCS) presents unique challenges in its causation of skull base scoliosis and orbital asymmetry. Many surgeons feel that the fronto-orbital advancement and vault remodeling is the most effective and reliable strategy to counteract these changes. Here we present our experience and outcomes with spring cranioplasty for unicoronal synostosis. Materials and methods: A retrospective review of non-syndromic unicoronal synostosis patients undergoing spring-assisted cranioplasty was performed. Preoperative and postoperative intracranial volume (ICV), orbital volume (OV), orbital height (OH), orbital width (OW), midface twist (MFT), and skull-base twist (SBT) were measured from DICOM CT data. Analysis was performed with Materialize software (Leuven, Belgium). Paired t-tests were performed using Excel. Results: Ten patients (5 females, 5 males) had springs placed at 100.1 days (avg). Average ICV: preop: 608.2 ± 101.4 cc, postop: 995.2 ± 166.1 cc. Differences in orbital volume and height in the preop affected orbit versus non-affected orbit was significant ( P = .01, P ≤ .001 respectively) whereas no significant difference between the two sides postoperatively was observed ( P = .19, P = .58 respectively). Average preop MFT was 81.1 ± 2° and postop was 87.6 ± 2.6° and preop SBT was 171.9 ± 2.7° and postop was 177.6 ± 2.6°; both showing significant improvement after spring cranioplasty (both P ≤ .001). Conclusion: Our experience and early outcomes with spring cranioplasty for UCS demonstrates that when used in younger patients (<5 months) cranial springs can be a safe and effective strategy to minimize skull base scoliosis, facial scoliosis, and orbital asymmetry, as well as increase intracranial volume. Although long-term data needs to be assessed, we are optimistic that early correction of cranial base scoliosis will translate to stable results as patients reach dentoskeletal maturity.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
FACE
Published
2024-10-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/27325016241287911
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Craniofacial Disorders and Treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.65
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Spring-Assisted Cranioplasty in Unicoronal Synostosis: Analysis of Outcomes

Sarah A. Frommer, Patrick D. Combs, Elizabeth Christine Tyler-Kabara, Patrick Kelley
3 citations
FACE
Craniofacial Disorders and Treatments
1.65
article

Spring-Assisted Cranioplasty in Unicoronal Synostosis: Analysis of Outcomes

Sarah A. Frommer, Patrick D. Combs, Elizabeth Christine Tyler-Kabara, Patrick Kelley
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Background: Spring-assisted cranioplasty and successful long-term outcomes for sagittal synostosis has been well described in recent literature. However, there is a paucity of data regarding the application of springs to unicoronal synostosis. Unicoronal synostosis (UCS) presents unique challenges in its causation of skull base scoliosis and orbital asymmetry. Many surgeons feel that the fronto-orbital advancement and vault remodeling is the most effective and reliable strategy to counteract these changes. Here we present our experience and outcomes with spring cranioplasty for unicoronal synostosis. Materials and methods: A retrospective review of non-syndromic unicoronal synostosis patients undergoing spring-assisted cranioplasty was performed. Preoperative and postoperative intracranial volume (ICV), orbital volume (OV), orbital height (OH), orbital width (OW), midface twist (MFT), and skull-base twist (SBT) were measured from DICOM CT data. Analysis was performed with Materialize software (Leuven, Belgium). Paired t-tests were performed using Excel. Results: Ten patients (5 females, 5 males) had springs placed at 100.1 days (avg). Average ICV: preop: 608.2 ± 101.4 cc, postop: 995.2 ± 166.1 cc. Differences in orbital volume and height in the preop affected orbit versus non-affected orbit was significant ( P = .01, P ≤ .001 respectively) whereas no significant difference between the two sides postoperatively was observed ( P = .19, P = .58 respectively). Average preop MFT was 81.1 ± 2° and postop was 87.6 ± 2.6° and preop SBT was 171.9 ± 2.7° and postop was 177.6 ± 2.6°; both showing significant improvement after spring cranioplasty (both P ≤ .001). Conclusion: Our experience and early outcomes with spring cranioplasty for UCS demonstrates that when used in younger patients (<5 months) cranial springs can be a safe and effective strategy to minimize skull base scoliosis, facial scoliosis, and orbital asymmetry, as well as increase intracranial volume. Although long-term data needs to be assessed, we are optimistic that early correction of cranial base scoliosis will translate to stable results as patients reach dentoskeletal maturity.

FACEVol. 5(4)
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Craniofacial Disorders and Treatments
1.65
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.