De Praeter Mania, Nadjmi Nasser, Reith Florence C M, Vercruysse Herman, Menovsky Tomas
Department of Neurosurgery, Antwerp University Hospital.
University of Antwerp.
J Craniofac Surg. 2019 Sep;30(6):1714-1718. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000005516.
Different techniques have been described to correct scaphocephaly. In authors' institution, total cranial vault remodeling (TCVR) was the standard of care. To limit the extent of surgery and the need for transfusion, the technique was minimized to extended strip craniectomy (ESC) without helmet therapy. This retrospective study compares outcome and morbidity between ESC and TCVR.
Twenty-seven scaphocephalic patients were included. The ESC was performed in 9 patients between 2012 and 2014, and TCVR in 17 patients between 2008 and 2016. Data on blood loss and transfusion rate, duration of surgery, length of hospital stay (LOS), head circumference, and cephalic index (CI) were collected retrospectively. A cosmetic outcome score (COS) was developed to rate esthetic outcome since CI is a limited and crude measurement of cosmetic outcome.
The LOS was identical in both groups, but duration of surgery was significantly shorter in ESC (P < 0.0001). Transfusion rate appeared higher in the TCVR group, but differences were not significant (P = 0.11). Cosmetic outcome appeared slightly worse in the ESC group, but results were not significantly different (P = 0.66). There was, however, a significant improvement in postoperative CI in the TCVR group (P < 0.0001).
The only advantage of ESC was the reduced duration of surgery, but this could not prevent the need for transfusion in this group of patients. The improvement of the CI was significantly less pronounced after ESC, but the COS was not significantly worse in the ESC group. The scar and LOS were similar in both groups. Therefore, our findings indicate that minimizing TCVR to ESC without helmet therapy does not provide significant advantages.
已有多种技术用于矫正舟状头畸形。在作者所在机构,全颅穹隆重塑术(TCVR)是标准治疗方法。为了限制手术范围和输血需求,该技术被简化为无需头盔治疗的扩大条带颅骨切除术(ESC)。这项回顾性研究比较了ESC和TCVR的治疗效果及并发症。
纳入27例舟状头畸形患者。2012年至2014年间对9例患者实施了ESC,2008年至2016年间对17例患者实施了TCVR。回顾性收集失血和输血率、手术时长、住院时间(LOS)、头围和头指数(CI)等数据。由于CI是对美容效果的有限且粗略的测量,因此制定了一个美容效果评分(COS)来评估美学效果。
两组的LOS相同,但ESC组的手术时长明显更短(P<0.0001)。TCVR组的输血率似乎更高,但差异不显著(P=0.11)。ESC组的美容效果似乎稍差,但结果无显著差异(P=0.66)。然而,TCVR组术后CI有显著改善(P<0.0001)。
ESC的唯一优势是手术时长缩短,但这并不能避免该组患者的输血需求。ESC术后CI的改善明显不那么显著,但ESC组的COS并没有显著更差。两组的瘢痕和LOS相似。因此,我们的研究结果表明,将TCVR简化为无需头盔治疗的ESC并没有显著优势。