Comparison of Cranial Vault Remodeling Versus Spring Cranioplasty for Nonsyndromic Unicoronal Craniosynostosis: Analysis of Outcomes

ObjectiveTo compare outcomes of cranial vault remodeling via fronto-orbital advancement and remodeling (FOAR) versus spring cranioplasty in patients with nonsyndromic unicoronal craniosynostosis (UCS), focusing on surgical parameters and craniofacial symmetry improvements.DesignRetrospective review comparing FOAR and spring-assisted cranioplasty outcomes using preoperative and postoperative CT data. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics 30.0.SettingInstitutional tertiary care center specializing in craniofacial surgery.Patients, ParticipantsNonsyndromic patients with UCS undergoing FOAR (<i>n</i> = 7) or spring cranioplasty (<i>n</i> = 11), with complete pre- and postoperative imaging and surgical data available.InterventionsFOAR involved traditional fronto-orbital advancement and remodeling. Spring cranioplasty consisted of spring placement followed by spring removal surgery, designed to remodel cranial vault less invasively.Main Outcome Measure(s)Retrospective review of surgical time, estimated blood loss (EBL), packed red blood cells (PRBC) transfused, intracranial volume (ICV), facial twist (FT), skull-base twist relative to palate (SBT-P) and nasion (SBT-N), and orbital morphology symmetry.ResultsSpring cranioplasty, when considering both placement and removal, significantly reduced operative time (157.9 ± 28.6 vs 264.7 ± 48.3 min), EBL (5.5 ± 1.6 vs 26.5 ± 9.2 mL/kg), and PRBC transfusion (2 ± 4.2 vs 27.4 ± 5.9 mL/kg) compared with FOAR (<i>P</i> < .001). Postoperatively, patients who underwent spring cranioplasty demonstrated significant improvements in FT, SBT-P, and SBT-N (<i>P</i> = .003), whereas FOAR did not achieve significant changes. ICV did not differ significantly between groups. Spring cranioplasty patients demonstrated superior orbital symmetry improvement.ConclusionsSpring cranioplasty offers a less invasive alternative to FOAR for UCS, with shorter surgery, less blood loss, and better craniofacial symmetry correction without compromising ICV expansion.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal
Published
2025-12-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656251401323
Primary Topic
Craniofacial Disorders and Treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison of Cranial Vault Remodeling Versus Spring Cranioplasty for Nonsyndromic Unicoronal Craniosynostosis: Analysis of Outcomes

Sarah A. Frommer, Elizabeth C. Tyler‐Kabara, Patrick D. Combs, Sebastian Kuriakose et al.
The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal
Craniofacial Disorders and Treatments
article

Comparison of Cranial Vault Remodeling Versus Spring Cranioplasty for Nonsyndromic Unicoronal Craniosynostosis: Analysis of Outcomes

Sarah A. Frommer, Elizabeth C. Tyler‐Kabara, Patrick D. Combs, Sebastian Kuriakose, Patrick Kelley
article en

Abstract

ObjectiveTo compare outcomes of cranial vault remodeling via fronto-orbital advancement and remodeling (FOAR) versus spring cranioplasty in patients with nonsyndromic unicoronal craniosynostosis (UCS), focusing on surgical parameters and craniofacial symmetry improvements.DesignRetrospective review comparing FOAR and spring-assisted cranioplasty outcomes using preoperative and postoperative CT data. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics 30.0.SettingInstitutional tertiary care center specializing in craniofacial surgery.Patients, ParticipantsNonsyndromic patients with UCS undergoing FOAR (<i>n</i> = 7) or spring cranioplasty (<i>n</i> = 11), with complete pre- and postoperative imaging and surgical data available.InterventionsFOAR involved traditional fronto-orbital advancement and remodeling. Spring cranioplasty consisted of spring placement followed by spring removal surgery, designed to remodel cranial vault less invasively.Main Outcome Measure(s)Retrospective review of surgical time, estimated blood loss (EBL), packed red blood cells (PRBC) transfused, intracranial volume (ICV), facial twist (FT), skull-base twist relative to palate (SBT-P) and nasion (SBT-N), and orbital morphology symmetry.ResultsSpring cranioplasty, when considering both placement and removal, significantly reduced operative time (157.9 ± 28.6 vs 264.7 ± 48.3 min), EBL (5.5 ± 1.6 vs 26.5 ± 9.2 mL/kg), and PRBC transfusion (2 ± 4.2 vs 27.4 ± 5.9 mL/kg) compared with FOAR (<i>P</i> < .001). Postoperatively, patients who underwent spring cranioplasty demonstrated significant improvements in FT, SBT-P, and SBT-N (<i>P</i> = .003), whereas FOAR did not achieve significant changes. ICV did not differ significantly between groups. Spring cranioplasty patients demonstrated superior orbital symmetry improvement.ConclusionsSpring cranioplasty offers a less invasive alternative to FOAR for UCS, with shorter surgery, less blood loss, and better craniofacial symmetry correction without compromising ICV expansion.

The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial JournalVol. 63(3)
Dell Children's Medical Center of Central Texas (US), The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 60%
Craniofacial Disorders and Treatments
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.