eMedicine Specialties > Plastic Surgery > Craniofacial
Craniosynostosis Management
Updated: Sep 17, 2008
Introduction
Craniosynostosis is the premature and abnormal fusion of 1 of the 6 suture lines that form the living skull. This abnormal fusion results in an abnormal head shape from aberrant bone growth patterns and, if uncorrected, can lead to increased intracranial pressure (ICP) and abnormalities in the shape and symmetry of the craniofacial skeleton. This article should familiarize the reader with the pathology of craniosynostosis, its manifestations, its diagnosis, and its surgical treatment.
History
Most of the modern understanding of craniosynostosis is referenced from the 1851 writings of Virchow. His understanding and descriptions of irregular calvarial growth patterns were the basis of the law of Virchow. According to his observations, the abnormal cranial growth observed in persons with craniosynostosis occurs perpendicular to the involved calvarial sutures. Therefore, if a suture line is prematurely ossified, no growth is present in the direction perpendicular to that suture. The law was too simplistic in its explanation of the growth patterns of the skull; later studies demonstrated conflicting data.1 The presence of compensatory growth patterns in patients with craniosynostosis was described later.2,3
Surgical treatment for craniosynostosis was initially advocated by Lannelongue in 1890.4 His patients had microcephaly from craniosynostosis and were thought to be imbeciles. These patients accordingly underwent craniectomy to remove the involved suture line and to "release the brain".4 Soon after, in 1891, linear craniectomy was introduced. As with any new procedure, this one met with much resistance. However, the resistance to a surgical intervention was slowly put to rest with mounting evidence. Several studies indicated that craniosynostectomy was the treatment of choice for the release of fused suture lines in the skull.5,6,7,8
Although strip craniectomy was used often, it lost much support with the advent of cranial vault reconstruction, in which the calvarial bones were excised, reshaped, and trimmed. Studies showed that, over time, cranial suture areas excised during strip craniectomy still became fused and led to an abnormal cranial contour.9 Strip craniectomy was easier and involved less blood loss compared with the newer cranial vault reconstruction. Strip craniectomy also did not address the frontal bossing and associated abnormalities in calvarial shape and relied on the rapid growth of the brain to correct it. Strip craniectomy was optimal only in the first few months of infancy, while surgeons could use cranial vault reconstruction throughout infancy. Consequently, strip craniectomy lost favor, and the surgical treatment has been modified to include cranial vault remodeling.
Recently, with the advent of endoscopy, attention has returned to endoscopic strip craniectomy. The endoscopic technique has only been tried over the last several years, but it offers the advantages of a shorter and safer operation, less cost, less in-hospital time, and less blood loss. The operation was shown to be a success in a study of 12 patients, all younger than 8 months.10 Critical to this success and a departure from the standard strip craniosynostectomy was the extensive use of a postoperative remodeling helmet. Although first introduced by Persing et al in 1986, helmet therapy has not been used as extensively as a postoperative therapeutic intervention.11 Following the endoscopic technique, helmets were used for several months and showed promising early results.
Pathogenesis
The neonate calvarium is composed of the frontal, parietal, temporal, sphenoid, and occipital bones. A suture separates each of these bones. The metopic suture separates the frontal bones; the coronal, the frontal, and parietal bones; the squamosal, parietal, and squamosal temporal bones; and the lambdoid, parietal, and occipital bones. The sagittal suture lies between the 2 parietal bones. The patent suture lines allow for continuous separation of the calvarial bones in the prenatal and the early perinatal period. They also allow for collapse of the head shape to facilitate the passage of the head through the birth canal.
If fused prematurely, growth is restricted predominantly in a direction perpendicular to the fused suture. However, growth does not completely stop. In response to a prematurely closed suture, the remaining sutures undergo compensatory growth in patterns that are now well documented.2 As the suture lines fuse, they act as a single growth plate but with decreased growth potential. Suture lines that are contiguous with the fused growth plate undergo symmetric bony deposition along both edges of the suture line. Other unaffected suture lines at the perimeter of the fused suture also undergo increased bony deposition. In this way, the living skull attempts to compensate for the altered growth potential caused by the premature suture fusion.
As the rapidly growing brain expands, it does so in a direction unrestricted by the sutures that are fused. This results in characteristic morphologic features, specific for each type of suture fusion.
Scaphocephaly or "boat skull" occurs following fusion of the sagittal suture (see Images 1-2). The calvarium continues to expand in the anteroposterior direction, with growth restricted in the transverse direction. Associated frontal bossing and occipital bathrocephaly (occipital bullet) are observed, which compound the scaphocephaly. With progression of the deformity, a typical hourglass deformity of the calvarium occurs. If the sagittal craniosynostosis is not corrected, the bizygomatic diameter narrows and the intercanthal and interdacryon distance decrease.
Brachycephaly or "short skull" occurs secondary to fusion of both coronal sutures (see Images 3-4). Fusion of both coronal sutures prevents anteroposterior growth of the calvarium and the anterior cranial fossa. The calvarium tends to grow vertically, leading to turricephaly, and laterally, leading to an increase in the bizygomatic and bitemporal diameter.
Unlike brachycephaly, unicoronal synostosis involves only one of the coronal sutures (see Image 5). This results in a discrepancy in growth of the calvarium. The restriction of the anterior growth on the involved (ipsilateral) side leads to a dorsal position of the frontoorbital bar and a ventral, more anterior position of the contralateral frontoorbital bar. Understanding this physiology is critical before attempting a corrective procedure. Once operative correction is instituted, both the ipsilateral and contralateral bones must be corrected in their position; this is essential. Moreover, one must understand that the fused suture restricts the growth of the sphenoid bone, resulting in a reduction of the anteroposterior dimension of the anterior cranial fossa. Consequently, the anterior endocranial base deviates toward the fused ipsilateral side.
In similar fashion, the ectocranium also deviates to the ipsilateral side and, if not corrected, leads to a deviation of the face and the occlusal cant. The roof of the orbit, which is formed by the greater wing of the sphenoid, is raised. The shape of the ipsilateral orbit is more vertical and the shape of the contralateral orbit is more horizontal. Throughout this process, the posterior cranial base is unaffected.
Trigonocephaly or "triangular skull" is seen in a pathologically fused metopic suture wherein the transverse growth of the forehead is compromised (see Images 6-7). This results in a narrowed, triangular forehead and a decrease in the interdacryon and intercanthal distances.
Lambdoid synostosis is one of the most rare types of craniosynostosis. The fused lambdoid suture leads to ipsilateral occipital flattening and enlargement of the ipsilateral mastoid process. The posterior ectocranial and endocranial base is deviated toward the fused lambdoid suture, and the petrous part of the temporal bone is deviated ipsilaterally; this is associated with external auditory meatus (and external ear) deviation dorsally toward the fused suture.
Lambdoid craniosynostosis is easily mistaken for deformational plagiocephaly, which occurs secondary to an external deforming force (vide infra). The external deforming force flattens the soft, malleable calvarium, resulting in ipsilateral occipital bone flattening, ipsilateral frontal bossing, contralateral occipital bossing, and contralateral frontal flattening (typical parallelogram-shaped head). The cranial base is not significantly deviated in deformational plagiocephaly.
Another very rare type is oxycephaly (turricephaly or "towering skull"). A combination of coronal and other types of early suture fusions can occur. In kleeblattschãdel or cloverleaf skull, all cranial sutures except the metopic and squamosal sutures fuse prematurely, giving the skull the appearance of a cloverleaf.12
Frequency and Etiology
Frequency
In the United States, the frequency rate of craniosynostosis is 0.04-0.1% and the prevalence is 3-5 cases per 10,000 live births. Commonly, the male-to-female ratio is reported to be 3:1. The most common type is sagittal synostosis, with a frequency rate of 50-58% of synostotic patients and a prevalence of 1 case in 4200 live births. The next most common type is coronal craniosynostosis, with a prevalence of 1 case in 10,000 live births and an overall frequency rate of 20-29%. Less common are metopic craniosynostosis at 4-10% and lambdoid craniosynostosis at 2-4%. Other forms of craniosynostosis (eg, oxycephaly) are rare. Associated syndromic conditions such as Apert syndrome or Crouzon syndrome are uncommon (approximately 4.5% of all craniosynostoses or approximately 1 case in 160,000 births).
Etiology
The calvarial sutures serve 2 important functions. The first is maintenance of head malleability during passage through the birth canal, and the second is continuance of the separation of the calvarial bones during intrauterine and early perinatal life. The sutures serve as growth sites where new bone is deposited in response to continuing separation of the osteogenic fronts between the opposing bones.13
Premature closure of any of the calvarial sutures prevents separation of the calvarial bones and produces a restriction on growth vectors leading to a morphologic change in calvarial shape. These changes are specific and characteristic for every type of craniosynostosis, as is described in Pathogenesis.14,12,15 However, the sequence of events leading to premature ossification of sutures is unknown. Biomechanical forces and genetically determined local expression of growth factors have been implicated in the etiology of craniosynostosis.16,17,18,19,12
The cranial base was proposed as the primary locus of the abnormality in children with craniosynostosis, and the altered cranial base was suggested to transmit the tensile forces through the dura, which led to premature closure of the calvarial suture.1 To study the changes in cranial base, suturectomy was performed in rabbits with and without dural transection. Findings suggested that suturectomy and transection of the dura did not affect growth more than suturectomy alone.20 This evidence indicated that the dura played a less important role than previously thought.
The skulls of members of American Indian tribes who intentionally modified children's skull shapes by head binding have been examined.21 The researchers concluded that a deformity of the cranial vault, either congenital or intentional, alters the morphology of the endocranial base and face and that mutability of the cranial base suggested that the endocranial base may not be the primary anomaly in persons with bicoronal or sagittal craniosynostosis.
Over the last decade, the role of the dura in maintaining sutural patency has been extensively studied. A series of experiments demonstrated that the dura initially plays an inductive role. Later, it assumes a permissive role in maintaining sutural patency through various signaling factors.22,23,24,17,25,26 The dura was studied in premature synostosis in rats, and researchers determined that the dura generates abnormal signals, which are blocked by a silastic sheet interposed between the dura and the overlying suture.27 Other investigators also documented an increased level of transforming growth factor-beta and mRNA levels locally, indicating an interaction between the dura and overlying sutures at the time of closure.28
Later, dura mater transplanted from beneath normally patent sutures to sites of sutural fusion in a naturally occurring craniosynostotic rabbit model was proven to keep these sites from reobliteration.29 Although the mechanism is not understood, the regional dura mater somehow determines the fate of the overlying suture.16
Sutures continue to remain as growth sites where cells undergo proliferation and later differentiate into osteoblasts. The calvarial sutures produce new bone at the suture front in response to the expanding neurocranium. As the brain expands, the sutures respond to this stimulus by adding new bone at the suture front. The addition of this new bone helps the suture width remain constant to accommodate the enlargement of the brain.30 The interaction between the brain and the patency of the overlying sutures is amply proven by clinical evidence of a premature closing of the sutures in the presence of microcephaly and continuing patency in the presence of hydrocephalus.
Secondary craniosynostosis can also develop following placement of a shunt in a child with hydrocephalus (shunt-induced craniosynostosis) because of a drop in ICP and diminution of neural thrust.12 Therefore, the neural thrust and the patency of overlying sutures may be closely integrated via the dura, which then serves as an intermediary source of signaling mediated through the TGF (transforming growth factor), FGFR (fibroblast growth factor receptor), TWIST, and MSX2 (muscle segment homeobox 2) genes. Genetic studies have now determined that mutations within these factors are responsible for a variety of craniosynostoses.31,18,32,33 The source of generation of these signals and gene amplification is not yet understood.
Until recently, brain function (neurodevelopmental analysis) had been considered normal in children with nonsyndromic craniosynostosis.34 Abnormalities have been reported in the cortex of the brains of children with craniosynostosis.35 Analyses of both cortical and subcortical structures have now revealed abnormalities in children with craniosynostosis.36 Preliminary results also demonstrate that although the brain on the affected side continues to grow following surgery, it does not demonstrate compensatory growth but continues to remain morphologically different compared with the contralateral side. This ultimately calls into question the concept held by most craniofacial surgeons that the growing brain in children with craniosynostosis is only restricted or compressed by the overlying fused suture.36
Because the development of the brain and the overlying calvarial bones are closely interrelated, craniosynostosis may synchronously affect both the suture and the underlying brain. Alternatively, the brain may be the source of the abnormality and the diminution or reduction of neural thrust may lead to craniosynostosis.
Clinical Presentation and Diagnosis
Passage of the head through the birth canal deforms the head. This shape is retained for 2-3 weeks postnatally, making the diagnosis of craniosynostosis by a pediatrician difficult in the neonatal period. Therefore, most cases are detected in the perinatal period and occasionally during later infancy. Diagnosing craniosynostosis early in the perinatal period is important because the brain grows rapidly during this period and a delay only worsens the deformity of the head shape. The clinical diagnosis is not difficult because each suture fusion is characterized by a specific calvarial deformity. The recent increase in the incidence of deformational plagiocephaly secondary to sleeping in the supine position has compounded the ease of diagnosis.
Prior to surgical intervention, cranial deformity from synostosis must be differentiated from plagiocephaly without synostosis. Plagiocephaly can be caused by a number of factors, the most common of which is the normal variant, deformational plagiocephaly. Two mechanisms have been proposed for the development of deformational plagiocephaly. The first mechanism occurs in utero, where the cranial deformation is the result of an early descent of the fetus into the true pelvis with resultant pressure on the malleable head. The second mechanism occurs is in the perinatal period in which infant positioning is thought to cause the observed plagiocephaly. The positioning can be caused by an inherent restriction of the neck and its movement, similar to torticollis, or may simply be the result of the habitual practice of placing the child in a supine position.37
In 1992, the American Academy of Pediatricians recommended that infants sleep in a supine position to reduce the incidence of sudden infant death syndrome. Although the incidence of sudden infant death syndrome dropped dramatically, the supine position generated a dramatic increase in the incidence of posterior plagiocephaly.37 This increased incidence has been proven to be directly related to children sleeping in the supine position.38 For more information on neonatal conditions, see Medscape's Neonatal Medicine Resource Center.
The calvarial bones are soft and malleable in the early perinatal period. Thus, a persistent deforming external force can produce ipsilateral occipital flattening, frontal bossing, contralateral occipital bulging, and frontal recession.39 This produces a typical parallelogram-shaped head, which simplifies the diagnosis of deformational plagiocephaly. The side on which the occiput is flattened has frontal bossing and ventral translocation of the external auditory meatus when viewed from the top of the head. The other side has occipital bossing, frontal flattening, and dorsal translocation of the external auditory meatus.
To confirm the diagnosis of craniosynostosis, take a careful history and complete a thorough physical examination. Take a detailed history of the birth, and document the sleeping position of the child in the early perinatal period. Head tilt and the inability of the head to turn in a particular direction suggest torticollis, making the diagnosis of deformational plagiocephaly more likely. Because some craniosynostoses are syndromic and familial, a detailed family history is absolutely essential. A family history of abnormal head shape or multiple systemic problems (eg, cardiac, genitourinary, musculoskeletal) is consistent with syndromic craniosynostosis.
An increase in the anteroposterior length (scaphocephaly) is caused by a sagittal synostosis. A transverse narrowing of the anterior skull (trigonocephaly) is associated with metopic synostosis. In trigonocephaly, the intermedial-canthal distance is decreased; however, these children do not have true hypotelorism because the interorbital distance is normal. The orbital rims are commonly hypoplastic. Bicoronal synostosis results in shortening of the skull in the anteroposterior direction but with widening at the bitemporal region. The frontoorbital rims are recessed bilaterally, leading to exorbitism and possible exposure keratitis.
Unilateral asymmetry or plagiocephaly can result from coronal or lambdoid synostosis. Unilateral coronal synostosis results in a recessed forehead and frontoorbital rim. Contralateral bossing of the forehead and the frontoorbital rim are present. The eyebrow on the ipsilateral side is raised, and the palpebral fissure is increased in vertical height. The globe is occasionally raised along with the pupil, resulting in vertical dystopia. Lambdoid synostosis is rare and must be differentiated from deformational plagiocephaly or plagiocephaly without synostosis.
As part of the examination, the head circumference is measured to rule out microcephaly or macrocephaly and associated hydrocephalus. The range of neck movements is documented to rule out torticollis. Examination of the face should include measurement of the distance between the medial canthi of the eyes (intermedial-canthal distance) and the interpupillary distance. The interpupillary distance is increased in children with hypertelorism.
The examination is then extended to include an appropriate neurologic examination with a focus on visual acuity and cranial nerves. In addition, pay particular attention to any signs and symptoms of elevated ICP. The fundi must be examined, and parents must be questioned regarding persistent vomiting or lethargy. If elevated ICP is suggested, neurosurgical assistance must be immediately obtained. Once a thorough neurological examination is completed, the face and its contour are examined for evidence of midface, orbital, or craniofacial abnormalities. Midface retrusion is associated with Apert or Crouzon syndrome.
Examination of toes and digits is critical to diagnose Apert syndrome that is associated with compound syndactyly. Transverse ridging is associated with craniofrontonasal dysplasia.
Investigations
Once the clinical diagnosis is complete, radiographic modalities should be used to substantiate the earlier findings.
Plain Films
Plain skull radiographs serve as an initial screening tool to visualize sutures and diagnose craniosynostosis. The test is simple and inexpensive, but the accuracy of the findings is less than desired. The efficacy of plain films is questionable because they cannot be used to differentiate certain pathologies such as lambdoid synostosis and deformational plagiocephaly (plagiocephaly without synostosis). In addition, to visualize all the sutures, special Waters views must be taken.
Ultrasound
As a noninvasive, nonradiologic modality, ultrasound has been used as a diagnostic tool in the area of craniosynostosis. It has been shown to be more effective than plain skull radiographs in detecting fused sutures, yet its use requires and its accuracy depends on a reliable and experienced operator.
CT Scan
A three-dimensional CT (3D CT) scan now serves as the diagnostic criterion standard for the complete visualization of the skull and cranial sutures. In the past, a standard, 2-dimensional CT (2D CT) scan was routinely used for the initial diagnosis of craniosynostosis. However, 2D CT failed to provide a complete assessment of the overall associated deformities. This made preoperative planning difficult, surgeries unpredictable, and outcomes unreliable. For these reasons, the standard 2D CT was abandoned in favor of the more reliable 3D CT scan.
With the 3D CT scan, specific views and protocols (eg, frontal, right or left profile, ectocranial or endocranial) can be used to allow for comparisons between the preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative courses. A tomographic scale of the various bony landmarks of the skull and face can be easily constructed. This, combined with available software analysis, allows for planning of possible osteotomies; thus, a more accurate preoperative plan can be completed and a more meaningful outcome analysis can be performed.35,38
Sagittal synostosis
Because the sagittal suture is fused and any growth in a transverse direction is restricted, the anteroposterior skull length is increased (see Image 8). Frontal bossing and an exaggerated occiput (occipital bathrocephaly) are present. The cephalic index (maximum transverse width/maximum anteroposterior length) is reduced. The severity of the ensuing scaphocephaly can be indexed because normograms for cephalic indices are available.40 However, the cephalic indices only measure 2-dimensional distances and fail to accurately account for the frontal bossing or the exaggerated occipital bulging. At this point, even though these measurements are crude, they are the most accurate and most widely available.
Metopic synostosis
As the metopic suture separates the frontal bones, its fusion restricts the transverse growth of the frontal bones and results in narrowing of the anterior cranial fossa (see Images 9-10). In the resulting trigonocephalic skull, the intermedial-canthal distance (ie, distance between medial canthi) and the interdacryon distance (ie, distance between lacrimal crests) are reduced. In addition, the orbital rims may be affected and hypoplastic depending on the severity of disease. Physiologically, the metopic suture is the first suture line to close. The commonly accepted theory is that the metopic suture fuses between the first and second years of life. However, as more CT scans are being completed on neonates, the metopic suture has been demonstrated to actually close much earlier, possibly as early as the third month of postnatal life.41
A normal physiologic closure of the metopic suture is not associated with deformity of the anterior cranial fossa. However, the medial-intercanthal distances should still be measured and compared with an available normogram.
Bicoronal synostosis
Brachycephaly results when premature fusion of both coronal suture lines occurs, restricting the anteroposterior growth of the anterior cranial fossa (see Images 11-13). This premature fusion restricts the anteroposterior dimension but allows for temporal growth, resulting in an increased bitemporal diameter. In addition, the frontoorbital bar is recessed; consequently, the supraorbitale is more posterior to the corneal plane. Normally, the supraorbitale is 2 mm ventral to the corneal plane.42 This abnormality leads to exorbitism and other complications.
Unicoronal synostosis
Unicoronal synostosis is characterized by a single fused coronal suture, differentiating it clearly from brachycephaly (see Images 14-15). In these patients, the ipsilateral frontoorbital bar is recessed while the contralateral frontoorbital bar continues to grow, making it more ventral. Because anteroposterior growth cannot occur, compensatory changes occur along the unaffected contralateral suture line. This is critical to understand because in these patients, both the ipsilateral and the contralateral suture lines must be surgically corrected to allow for a smooth and symmetric correction. The fused suture also affects the growth of the sphenoid bone, reducing the anterior cranial fossa and altering the contour of the roof of the orbit.
As a consequence of these interactions, the anterior endocranial base and the ectocranium both deviate toward the ipsilateral involved side. If not corrected, this changes the shape of the face and the occlusal cant. Because of the position of the abnormal suture line in these patients, the posterior cranial base remains unaltered and grows normally.43
Lambdoid synostosis
This synostosis is characterized by a fused lambdoid suture (see Image 16). The fused lambdoid suture alters the dimensions of the posterior cranial fossa. The posterior cranial base deviates to the ipsilateral side. As expected, the contralateral suture line then protrudes. On the affected side, the mastoid process bulges and is considered pathognomonic for lambdoid synostosis. Unlike with the other synostoses, the diagnosis of lambdoid synostosis is difficult because it shares similar features with deformational plagiocephaly (plagiocephaly without synostosis).
For this same reason, care must be taken to understand each unique feature. In lambdoid synostosis, growth is restricted on the side of the fused suture, while in deformational plagiocephaly, the skull is pushed ventrally. In lambdoid synostosis, the petrous part of the temporal bone and the external auditory canal are pulled towards the fused suture. In deformational plagiocephaly, the temporal bone and the external auditory canal are pushed anteriorly (ventrally). Also in deformational cases, ipsilateral frontal bossing is common; however, it is almost never seen in a true lambdoid synostosis.
MRI
Even though MRI affords much more specific information about the anatomy of the brain (see Images 17-18), it is not commonly used to assess craniosynostosis. MRI is able to effectively and clearly catalogue the cortical patterns of the sulci and the gyri of the brain underneath fused suture lines; however, it does not provide information about cortical function.
Currently, the relevance of the abnormal patterns of gyri and sulci observed in patients with craniosynostosis is intensely debated. Whether these abnormal patterns are the result of the overlying fused sutures or whether they are the primary event causing the fusion of the suture lines remains unknown. Although this question should seemingly be effectively answered by comparing preoperative and 1-year postoperative MRIs, this has proven much more difficult because of the lack of normal MRIs for comparison and the lack of software that can objectively measure alterations in the underlying sulci and gyri.
Neurodevelopmental Study
The purpose of neurodevelopmental testing is to obtain information about the cortical functioning prior to and after cranial vault remodeling. The Bayley Scales of Infant Development–II (BSID-II) are commonly used to procure this information.44 A longitudinal assessment is essential to perform a meaningful analysis. These tests compare the child's mental and psychomotor scales with a normogram and thus help in quantifying whether the child is delayed and whether the surgery will help reduce the severity of the delay. Children with syndromic craniosynostosis characterized by multisystem involvement are often delayed. This delay can be severe, and the child may be classified as mentally retarded. However, children with single-suture craniosynostosis do not commonly have significant delays.45,46,47
A more detailed assessment with more sophisticated analyses has demonstrated delays in patients with single-suture craniosynostosis.34,48 Children with metopic and sagittal craniosynostosis also have minor delays in learning and speech, which were not previously recognized in this population.49,50
The greatest difficulty with neurodevelopmental testing is the lack of accuracy in measuring cortical function in an infant at age 3-6 months. Children considered at risk who showed delays at 12 months did correlate with scores of development at age 4.5 years.51 Similarly, at-risk children assessed at 6 months had scores predictive of intelligence scores at 24 and 48 months.52 Understandably, an infant aged 3 months cannot be tested for language delays, but the BSID-II is a comprehensive test of various aspects of an infant's developmental skills and does not produce isolated findings. These factors make BSID-II the most reliable assessment tool for infants.
Indications and Contraindications to Intervention
The absolute indications for surgical intervention in persons with craniosynostosis include (1) prevention of intracranial hypertension and its associated sequelae that occur in some patients with uncorrected synostosis, (2) prevention of progression of the calvarial deformity, (3) prevention of progression of the facial deformity, and (4) optimization of the growth potential of the brain in the early perinatal period.
Uncorrected synostosis may be associated with an increase in ICP. This has been documented in animal models and in humans. As the suture lines fail to yield, growth of the calvarium is restricted. The continuing growth of the underlying brain parenchyma exerts an expansile force leading to an increase in ICP. In a study in which the ICP of children with synostosis was measured, 47% of the children with multiple synostosis and 14% of the children with single synostosis had elevated ICP.53 In these same patients, ICP dropped significantly following surgical correction.
Surgical intervention corrects possible intracranial hypertension and corrects facial skeletal asymmetry if the surgery is performed before age 9 months.54,55 The ensuing asymmetry of the orbit leads to ocular dystopia and consequent strabismus. The asymmetry in the maxilla and mandible leads to malocclusion.
Almost as important as the decision to operate is the optimum age at operation. Surgery is advocated in early infancy because most brain growth occurs in the first year of life. Therefore, if the deformed sutures are not released, the deforming vectors of the continually growing brain result in progression of the deformity with increasing age. The osseous defects following surgery undergo reossification more completely if surgery is performed in those younger than 1 year compared with later. The calvarium in an infant aged 3-9 months is much more malleable, making it easier to shape and providing a better outcome.
Contraindications
The only absolute contraindication to surgical intervention is the presence of microcephaly. Calvarial sutures close secondary to the lack of expansile force from the underlying brain. Surgical intervention just to release the fused sutures is associated with high rate of re-fusion and thus is not appropriate.
Although surgery for craniosynostosis improves calvarial shape, it should not be considered cosmetic. For reasons mentioned earlier, delay in surgery leads to continuing deformity of the craniofacial skeleton. In addition, increased ICP adversely affects the development of the child. This has been demonstrated in recent studies in which exposure to prolonged ICP has been associated with a delay in brain development.56
Treatment and Complications
Medical Intervention
Although surgical intervention remains the primary treatment modality, one must keep in mind the role of medical (nonsurgical) treatment. Limited to nonsyndromic deformational plagiocephaly, molding helmets serve an important role in the correction of cranial deformities. Customized molding helmets are an adjunct to preventive measures such as frequent posture change. Helmets must be worn 23 h/d until age 1 year. Early intervention is important because molding therapy is not very effective after age 1 year.
Surgical Intervention
Positioning and access
Patient position on the operating table depends on which fused suture needs correction. The supine position with the head supported on a neurosurgery horseshoe allows access to the anterior cranium and the frontoorbital region. This position is frequently used for correction of metopic and unicoronal craniosynostoses. The prone position gives access to the occipital area and thus is used to correct lambdoid craniosynostosis. If access to both the anterior and the posterior cranium is needed, then a modified prone position with the cervical spine extended allows access to both the frontoorbital area and the occipital area (see Image 19). This position is used for correction of sagittal and bicoronal craniosynostoses. This position can be dangerous if the patient is accidentally extubated during the procedure. Great care should be taken to ensure proper fixation of the endotracheal tube to prevent this occurrence.
Initial approach
A zigzag bicoronal incision is routinely used for access. The zigzag incision prevents parting of the hair along a straight line, and the scar tends to spread less because of redistribution of the forces. Incision begins slightly anterior and superior to the helix of the ear. Care must be taken to not extend incisions too far anterior or inferior for fear of injury to the temporal branch of the facial nerve. Electrocautery is used cautiously in order to prevent damage to the hair follicles and subsequent visible scarring resulting from a lack of hair in the incision line.
Dissection is performed in the subgaleal plane. Flaps are developed anteriorly and posteriorly if needed. As the orbital rims are reached, the incision through the periosteum is completed. Care is taken to not injure the supraorbital neurovascular bundle, exiting from the supraorbital foramen or notch, in the medial aspect of the superior orbital rim. The bundle is then subsequently translocated forward and out of the foramen or notch with the coronal flap. The temporalis muscle is dissected from the bone and reflected inferiorly. This allows access to the lateral wall of the orbit.
High-speed craniotomes with small burs are used for the initial craniotomy. Constant irrigation is necessary to prevent thermal injury to the cranial bones. The craniotomy is then extended. Using periosteal elevators, the calvarium is carefully elevated from the dura. Dural tears are identified and repaired immediately after removal of the bones. If orbital osteotomies are needed, the periorbitum is separated carefully and the ocular globe is retracted with a malleable retractor. Intracranial and transorbital approaches are performed to create the osteotomy of the supraorbital ridge (frontoorbital bar).
Fixation principles
Rigid fixation is critical to maintain the shape following correction. Although titanium plates were used in the past, they were associated with migration from the ectocranium to the endocranium. Some of the plates and screws came in contact with the dura and the brain. Over the last decade, these plates have been replaced by absorbable plates made of a combination of polyglycolic and polylactic acid. These plates variably absorb by hydrolysis in 1-3 years. Their strength and safety have been well documented.57,58
Authors' Techniques
Following are descriptions of the techniques used by the authors to correct craniosynostosis. The described techniques are not the only effective methods; other methods have been used successfully, but a complete description of all procedures is beyond the scope of this article.
Sagittal synostosis
Treatment objectives include correction of scaphocephaly and correction of the frontal bossing and occipital protrusion associated with this deformity. Initial surgical procedures included a narrow-strip craniectomy, which was associated with a high prevalence of resynostosis.9 A wider and more extensive craniectomy was performed and became the norm. This procedure did not address the frontal bossing and occipital bathrocephaly and relied on the growing brain to correct these deformities. Dissatisfaction amongst craniofacial surgeons led to a more extensive cranial vault remodeling with barrel-stave osteotomy to correct the scaphocephaly and associated deformities.59
A recent retrospective comparison between the extended-strip craniectomy and cranial vault remodeling has shown that the extent of improvement in the cephalic index was significantly higher with the latter procedure, even if the extended-strip craniectomy was performed in the first 4 months of postnatal life.60 With the advent of endoscopes in neurosurgery, extended-strip craniectomy is performed and the patient is placed in a custom-made molding helmet to correct the frontal bossing and bathrocephaly.61,10 Although this procedure has become more popular in recent years because of the rapid recovery of the child and diminished need for blood transfusion, no prospective long-term studies are currently comparing the results of extended-strip craniectomy with molding-helmet therapy versus cranial vault remodeling.
Another approach described in the literature is the use of springs. Described by Lauritzen et al, this approach has compared favorably with the standard craniofacial procedures for the correction of cranial synostosis.62
Based on current evidence, the authors prefer to perform cranial vault remodeling (see Images 20-32). The frontal, parietal, and occipital bones are removed and transferred to the side assembly table. Radial osteotomies are performed on each bone to normalize the contours. Shortening of the anteroposterior dimension is accomplished by ostectomy of the sagittal suture. Out-fracturing the base of the temporal bones aids in increasing the lateral dimension of the calvarium. The bones are molded into shape and subsequently replaced into position. Fixation of the bones is accomplished with absorbable plates and resorbable sutures.
Unicoronal synostosis
Treatment objectives include the correction of asymmetry within the frontoorbital bar, frontal bone, and orbits.60 The frontal bone is removed by performing a craniotomy 10 mm above the supraorbital rim, thus separating it from the orbital bar. Advancement of the ipsilateral frontoorbital bar is accomplished by first creating an osteotomy across the floor of the anterior cranial fossa and the roof of the orbit. The osteotomy begins at the pterion and extends across the midline anterior to the crista galli and onto the pterion on the other side. Externally, the osteotomy is made across the lateral wall of the orbit and onto the frontozygomatic suture. The frontoorbital bar is then excised. Each orbit is then remodeled and shaped to create symmetry. The bar is fixed at the nasion with absorbable plates. The frontoorbital bar is then advanced on the ipsilateral side. The objective is to position the rim approximately 3 mm ventral to the vertical plane of the cornea.
Small bone grafts may need to be used as interposition grafts if the overall advancement is large. The ipsilateral orbital rim is cephalad compared with the uninvolved side. Bone is removed from the frontozygomatic and frontonasal sutures to correct this asymmetry. In addition, bone is added to the contralateral side to aid in symmetry. Bone is also added to the ipsilateral orbit rim width and removed from the contralateral rim width to correct the transverse discrepancy. Symmetric replacement of the frontal bone, after molding, is completed.
Fixation is accomplished via absorbable plate fixation. The plates are positioned at the lateral orbital rim at its junction with the temporal bone, the frontonasal junction, and on the frontal bone at its junction with the frontoorbital bar, parietal bones, and temporal bones. Early intervention and appropriate remodeling aids in the prevention of long-term growth disturbances within the facial bones and jaws (see Images 47-56).
Metopic synostosis
Objectives include an increase in width of the bifrontal diameter, an increase in volume of the anterior cranial fossa, and normalization of frontal bone shape.63 The frontal bones and the frontoorbital bones are excised and transferred to the side assembly table (see Images 57-67). The frontoorbital bar is advanced to create an appropriate brow position.
The interdacryon distance is increased by placing a bone graft between the 2 halves of the frontoorbital bars. The bone is placed in a tenon-and-mortise fashion to enhance stabilization. The lateral aspects of the orbital rims are also advanced. Fixation is accomplished via absorbable plates placed at the lateral orbital rims at their junction with the temporal bones. In addition, fixation is accomplished at the frontonasal junction. The frontal bones are fixed to one another so that the bifrontal diameter is increased.
Closure
After fixation of the bone segments, closure is undertaken. If the temporalis muscle was separated, it must be repositioned. The temporalis is resuspended using absorbable sutures secured to a previously placed fixation plate. This technique provides a cephalad suspension of the muscle as it heals in place. The coronal flaps must be reapproximated, and the galeal layer must be sutured. Hemostasis is paramount prior to closure to minimize blood loss. Resorbable sutures are used to close the skin layer. The placement of a suction drain is recommended to reduce the amount of subcutaneous blood collection. A firmly applied head dressing is secured in place with burn netting.
Postoperative care
Admission to the pediatric intensive care unit for 24 hours is usually indicated. Hemodynamic and neurologic parameters are closely monitored. Considerable edema may be encountered, but it quickly resolves in the following days. The authors complete a perioperative 3D CT scan on the fourth postoperative day. This allows for comparison of the preoperative skull morphology with the immediate postoperative result. The child is discharged following the CT scan. Routine postoperative follow-up visits are made over the next 3 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year, with annual visits until age 6 years. Subsequent follow-up visits with a craniofacial team every 2-3 years are indicated for ongoing evaluation.
Complications
Associated complications inherent to surgical treatment and general anesthesia are anticipated. Although rare, mortality has been described. Commonly, insufficient intraoperative blood replacement is the main cause. Wound infections likewise are rare but have been documented; prophylactic perioperative antibiotics are used to minimize this risk. Wound dehiscence is also intermittently encountered and treated locally as indicated; prevention, aided by meticulous closure, is of primary importance. Persistent cerebrospinal fluid leaks are extremely rare.
Minor asymmetries are occasionally encountered. Tolerance of the discrepancy is acceptable; however, hydroxyapatite paste is used to correct persistent deformities. Major asymmetries must be addressed with surgical alteration by osteotomy and repositioning. Reoperation rates approach 7%, with increased rates of reoperation for syndromic versus nonsyndromic craniosynostosis.64
Future
Advances in research may one day eliminate the need for surgical intervention. Prevention and early identification may render surgical techniques obsolete. Until that time, advances are directed toward shortening surgical time and minimizing surgical trauma. Endoscopic strip craniectomies are now being performed. The results are interesting but more data are required to demonstrate the superiority of this technique over existing procedures. Improvement in surgical treatment planning, along with computer-aided or stereotactic procedures, may lead to improved accuracy in bone positioning. Lastly, advancements in medical therapeutics, anesthesia, monitoring, and management may improve the overall experience of the child and the families of these unique individuals.
Multimedia
 | Media file 1: Craniosynostosis management. Lateral view of a child with sagittal craniosynostosis demonstrating frontal and occipital bossing and dolichocephaly. |
 | Media file 2: Craniosynostosis management. Superior view of a child with sagittal craniosynostosis demonstrating frontal bossing bilaterally and dolichocephaly. |
 | Media file 3: Craniosynostosis management. Child with bicoronal synostosis with exorbitism and recessed frontoorbital bar. |
 | Media file 4: Craniosynostosis management. Child with bicoronal synostosis with exorbitism and recessed frontoorbital bar in association with mild turricephaly. |
 | Media file 5: Craniosynostosis management. Child with right unicoronal synostosis demonstrating asymmetry of the orbits and widened palpebral fissure on the left in association with superiorly displaced left eyebrow. Notice the asymmetry of the face and deviation of the facial axis to the contralateral side. |
 | Media file 6: Craniosynostosis management. Superior view of a child with metopic craniosynostosis showing trigonocephaly (narrowing of the anterior calvarium). |
 | Media file 7: Craniosynostosis management. Frontal view of a child with metopic craniosynostosis demonstrating a metopic ridge. |
 | Media file 8: Craniosynostosis management. Superior view of a 3-dimensional CT scan demonstrating a fused sagittal suture with frontal bossing and patent coronal sutures. |
 | Media file 9: Craniosynostosis management. A child with metopic craniosynostosis with ridging at the site of the metopic suture and hypoplasia of the orbits. |
 | Media file 10: Craniosynostosis management. Superior view of 3-dimensional CT scan of a child with metopic craniosynostosis and patent coronal and sagittal sutures. Note the trigonocephaly. |
 | Media file 11: Craniosynostosis management. Lateral view of 3-dimensional CT scan of a child with bicoronal synostosis. Note the recession of the frontoorbital bar and turricephaly. |
 | Media file 12: Craniosynostosis management. Frontal view of a 3-dimensional CT scan demonstrating turricephaly and recession of the frontoorbital bar. |
 | Media file 13: Craniosynostosis management. Superior view of a 3-dimensional CT scan demonstrating bicoronal synostosis with significant recession of the frontoorbital bar and the frontal bones. Both the frontoorbital bar and the frontal bones lie dorsal to the malar eminences and the maxillary anterior nasal spine. |
 | Media file 14: Craniosynostosis management. Child with right unicoronal synostosis demonstrating asymmetry of the orbits. The right orbit is narrower and taller compared with the contralateral side, and deviation of the facial axis is present. |
 | Media file 15: Craniosynostosis management. A 3-dimensional CT scan demonstrating right unicoronal synostosis with a fused right coronal suture, patent metopic suture, left coronal suture, and sagittal sutures. The right frontoorbital bar and the right frontal bone are more dorsal compared with the contralateral side, which demonstrates frontal bossing. |
 | Media file 16: Craniosynostosis management. A 3-dimensional CT scan showing bilambdoid craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 17: Craniosynostosis management. A 3-dimensional MRI examination of the brain demonstrating the cortical sulci and gyri architecture. |
 | Media file 18: Craniosynostosis management. MRI examination of the brain of a child with unicoronal craniosynostosis demonstrating an abnormal brain cortex. |
 | Media file 19: Craniosynostosis management. Position of a child with sagittal craniosynostosis. The child is supported on a bean bag in a prone position with the neck held in cervical extension. This position allows access to the anterior and posterior aspects of the calvarium to allow correction of frontal bossing and occipital bullet. |
 | Media file 20: Craniosynostosis management. Preoperative photograph of a child with sagittal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 21: Craniosynostosis management. Preoperative photograph of a child with sagittal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 22: Craniosynostosis management. Preoperative photograph of a child with sagittal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 23: Craniosynostosis management. Preoperative CT image of a child with sagittal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 24: Craniosynostosis management. Preoperative CT image of a child with sagittal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 25: Craniosynostosis management. Preoperative CT image of a child with sagittal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 26: Craniosynostosis management. Preoperative CT image of a child with sagittal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 27: Craniosynostosis management. A 1-year postoperative photograph of a child with sagittal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 28: Craniosynostosis management. A 1-year postoperative photograph of a child with sagittal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 29: Craniosynostosis management. A 1-year postoperative photograph of a child with sagittal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 30: Craniosynostosis management. A 1-year postoperative CT image of a child with sagittal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 31: Craniosynostosis management. A 1-year postoperative CT image of a child with sagittal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 32: Craniosynostosis management. A 1-year postoperative CT image of a child with sagittal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 33: Craniosynostosis management. Preoperative photograph of a child with unicoronal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 34: Craniosynostosis management. Preoperative photograph of a child with unicoronal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 35: Craniosynostosis management. Preoperative photograph of a child with unicoronal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 36: Craniosynostosis management. Preoperative CT image of a child with unicoronal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 37: Craniosynostosis management. Preoperative CT image of a child with unicoronal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 38: Craniosynostosis management. Preoperative CT image of a child with unicoronal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 39: Craniosynostosis management. Preoperative CT image of a child with unicoronal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 40: Craniosynostosis management. A 1-year postoperative photograph of a child with unicoronal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 41: Craniosynostosis management. A 1-year postoperative photograph of a child with unicoronal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 42: Craniosynostosis management. A 1-year postoperative photograph of a child with unicoronal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 43: Craniosynostosis management. A 1-year postoperative CT image of a child with unicoronal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 44: Craniosynostosis management. A 1-year postoperative CT image of a child with unicoronal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 45: Craniosynostosis management. A 1-year postoperative CT image of a child with unicoronal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 46: Craniosynostosis management. A 1-year postoperative CT image of a child with unicoronal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 47: Craniosynostosis management. Preoperative photograph of a child with bicoronal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 48: Craniosynostosis management. Preoperative photograph of a child with bicoronal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 49: Craniosynostosis management. Preoperative CT image of a child with bicoronal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 50: Craniosynostosis management. Preoperative CT image of a child with bicoronal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 51: Craniosynostosis management. Preoperative CT image of a child with bicoronal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 52: Craniosynostosis management. A 1-year postoperative photograph of a child with bicoronal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 53: Craniosynostosis management. A 1-year postoperative photograph of a child with bicoronal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 54: Craniosynostosis management. A 1-year postoperative CT image of a child with bicoronal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 55: Craniosynostosis management. A 1-year postoperative CT image of a child with bicoronal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 56: Craniosynostosis management. A 1-year postoperative CT image of a child with bicoronal craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 57: Craniosynostosis management. Preoperative photograph of a child with metopic craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 58: Craniosynostosis management. Preoperative photograph of a child with metopic craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 59: Craniosynostosis management. Preoperative CT image of a child with metopic craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 60: Craniosynostosis management. Preoperative CT image of a child with metopic craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 61: Craniosynostosis management. Intraoperative photograph of insertion of tenon-and-mortise bone graft to increase width of the frontoorbital bar. |
 | Media file 62: Craniosynostosis management. Intraoperative photograph of insertion of tenon-and-mortise bone graft to increase width of the frontoorbital bar. |
 | Media file 63: Craniosynostosis management. Intraoperative photograph of insertion of tenon-and-mortise bone graft to increase width of the frontoorbital bar. |
 | Media file 64: Craniosynostosis management. A 1-year postoperative photograph of a child with metopic craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 65: Craniosynostosis management. A 1-year postoperative photograph of a child with metopic craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 66: Craniosynostosis management. A 1-year postoperative CT image of a child with metopic craniosynostosis. |
 | Media file 67: Craniosynostosis management. A 1-year postoperative CT image of a child with metopic craniosynostosis. |
Keywords
craniosynostosis, plagiocephaly, abnormal head shapes, fused sutures, deformational plagiocephaly, head deformity, cranial deformity, cranium deformity, deformed cranium, fused cranial sutures, abnormal skull fusion, skull deformity, deformed skull, scaphocephaly, boat skull, brachycephaly, short skull, unicoronal synostosis, trigonocephaly, triangular skull, lambdoid synostosis, oxycephaly, turricephaly, towering skull, kleeblattschadel, cloverleaf skull, ICP, increased intracranial pressure, craniotomy, increased ICP, sagittal synostosis, bicoronal synostosis, metopic synostosis
More on Craniosynostosis Management |
| References |
References
Moss ML. The pathogenesis of premature cranial synostosis in man. Acta Anat (Basel). 1959;37:351-70. [Medline].
Delashaw JB, Persing JA, Broaddus WC, Jane JA. Cranial vault growth in craniosynostosis. J Neurosurg. Feb 1989;70(2):159-65. [Medline].
Delashaw JB, Persing JA, Jane JA. Cranial deformation in craniosynostosis. A new explanation. Neurosurg Clin N Am. Jul 1991;2(3):611-20. [Medline].
Lannelongue O. De la craniectomie chez la microcephalie. Un Med. 1890;50:42.
Faber HK, Towne EB. Early craniectomy as a preventive measure in oxycephaly and allied conditions. Am J Med Sci. 1927;173:701.
Dandy WE. An operation for scaphocephaly. Arch Surg. 1943;47:247.
Ingraham FD, Alexander E, Matson D. Clinical studies in craniosynostosis: analysis of and description of a method of treatment. Surg. 1948;24:518.
Shillito J Jr, Matson DD. Craniosynostosis: a review of 519 surgical patients. Pediatrics. Apr 1968;41(4):829-53. [Medline].
Venes JL, Sayers MP. Sagittal synostectomy. Technical note. J Neurosurg. Mar 1976;44(3):390-2. [Medline].
Barone CM, Jimenez DF. Endoscopic craniectomy for early correction of craniosynostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg. Dec 1999;104(7):1965-73; discussion 1974-5. [Medline].
Persing JA, Nichter LS, Jane JA, Edgerton MT Jr. External cranial vault molding after craniofacial surgery. Ann Plast Surg. Oct 1986;17(4):274-83. [Medline].
Cohen MM. Sutural pathology. In: Cohen MM, MacLean RE. Craniosynostosis: Diagnosis, Evaluation and Management. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2000:51-68.
Baer MJ. Patterns of growth of the skull as revealed by vital staining. Hum Biol. May 1954;26(2):80-126. [Medline].
Enlow DH. Normal craniofacial growth. In: Cohen MM. Craniosynostosis: Diagnosis, Evaluation and Management. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1986:131-56.
Enlow DH. Normal craniofacial growth. In: Cohen MM, MacLean RE. Craniosynostosis: Diagnosis, Evaluation and Management. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2000:35-50.
Roth DA, Bradley JP, Levine JP, et al. Studies in cranial suture biology: part II. Role of the dura in cranial suture fusion. Plast Reconstr Surg. Apr 1996;97(4):693-9. [Medline].
Opperman LA, Nolen AA, Ogle RC. TGF-beta 1, TGF-beta 2, and TGF-beta 3 exhibit distinct patterns of expression during cranial suture formation and obliteration in vivo and in vitro. J Bone Miner Res. Mar 1997;12(3):301-10. [Medline].
Wilkie AO. Craniosynostosis: genes and mechanisms. Hum Mol Genet. 1997;6(10):1647-56. [Medline].
Ozaki W, Buchman SR, Muraszko KM, Coleman D. Investigation of the influences of biomechanical force on the ultrastructure of human sagittal craniosynostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg. Oct 1998;102(5):1385-94. [Medline].
Babler WJ, Persing JA, Persson KM, et al. Skull growth after coronal suturectomy, periostectomy, and dural transection. J Neurosurg. Apr 1982;56(4):529-35. [Medline].
Eaton A, Cheverud J, Marsh J. The effect of artificial calvarial modification on endocranial base morphology. Winner, Plastic Surgery Educational Foundation Essay Competition. 1997.
Opperman LA, Sweeney TM, Redmon J, et al. Tissue interactions with underlying dura mater inhibit osseous obliteration of developing cranial sutures. Dev Dyn. Dec 1993;198(4):312-22. [Medline].
Opperman LA, Persing JA, Sheen R, Ogle RC. In the absence of periosteum, transplanted fetal and neonatal rat coronal sutures resist osseous obliteration. J Craniofac Surg. Nov 1994;5(5):327-32. [Medline].
Opperman LA, Passarelli RW, Morgan EP, et al. Cranial sutures require tissue interactions with dura mater to resist osseous obliteration in vitro. J Bone Miner Res. Dec 1995;10(12):1978-87. [Medline].
Opperman LA, Chhabra A, Nolen AA, et al. Dura mater maintains rat cranial sutures in vitro by regulating suture cell proliferation and collagen production. J Craniofac Genet Dev Biol. Jul-Sep 1998;18(3):150-8. [Medline].
Opperman LA, Adab K, Gakunga PT. Transforming growth factor-beta 2 and TGF-beta 3 regulate fetal rat cranial suture morphogenesis by regulating rates of cell proliferation and apoptosis. Dev Dyn. Oct 2000;219(2):237-47. [Medline].
Levine JP, Bradley JP, Roth DA, et al. Studies in cranial suture biology: regional dura mater determines overlying suture biology. Plast Reconstr Surg. May 1998;101(6):1441-7. [Medline].
Most D, Levine JP, Chang J, et al. Studies in cranial suture biology: up-regulation of transforming growth factor-beta1 and basic fibroblast growth factor mRNA correlates with posterior frontal cranial suture fusion in the rat. Plast Reconstr Surg. May 1998;101(6):1431-40. [Medline].
Mooney MP, Burrows AM, Smith TD, et al. Correction of coronal suture synostosis using suture and dura mater allografts in rabbits with familial craniosynostosis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. May 2001;38(3):206-25. [Medline].
Opperman LA. Cranial sutures as intramembranous bone growth sites. Dev Dyn. Dec 2000;219(4):472-85. [Medline].
Wilkie AO, Slaney SF, Oldridge M, et al. Apert syndrome results from localized mutations of FGFR2 and is allelic with Crouzon syndrome. Nat Genet. Feb 1995;9(2):165-72. [Medline].
Jabs EW. Toward understanding the pathogenesis of craniosynostosis through clinical and molecular correlates. Clin Genet. Feb 1998;53(2):79-86. [Medline].
Wilkie AO, Morriss-Kay GM. Genetics of craniofacial development and malformation. Nat Rev Genet. Jun 2001;2(6):458-68. [Medline].
Panchal J, Amirsheybani H, Gurwitch R, et al. Neurodevelopment in children with single-suture craniosynostosis and plagiocephaly without synostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg. Nov 2001;108(6):1492-8; discussion 1499-500. [Medline].
Marsh JL, Koby M, Lee B. 3-D MRI in craniosynostosis: Identification of previously unappreciated neural anomalies. Presented at: 5th Congress of the International Society of Craniofacial Surgery. Oaxaca, Mexico: October, 1993.
Aldridge K, Marsh J, Peryln C, Richtsmeier J. Quantification of central nervous system dysmorphology in isolated craniosynostosis. Presented at: American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association 58th Annual Meeting. Minneapolis, Minn: April 26, 2001.
Kane AA, Mitchell LE, Craven KP, Marsh JL. Observations on a recent increase in plagiocephaly without synostosis. Pediatrics. Jun 1996;97(6 Pt 1):877-85. [Medline].
Mulliken JB, Vander Woude DL, Hansen M, et al. Analysis of posterior plagiocephaly: deformational versus synostotic. Plast Reconstr Surg. Feb 1999;103(2):371-80. [Medline].
Huang MH, Gruss JS, Clarren SK, et al. The differential diagnosis of posterior plagiocephaly: true lambdoid synostosis versus positional molding. Plast Reconstr Surg. Oct 1996;98(5):765-74; discussion 775-6. [Medline].
Lo LJ, Marsh JL, Vannier MW, Patel VV. Craniofacial computer-assisted surgical planning and simulation. Clin Plast Surg. Oct 1994;21(4):501-16. [Medline].
Vu HL, Panchal J, Parker EE, et al. The timing of physiologic closure of the metopic suture: a review of 159 patients using reconstructed 3D CT scans of the craniofacial region. J Craniofac Surg. Nov 2001;12(6):527-32. [Medline].
Hansman CF. Growth of interorbital distance and skull thickness as observed in roentgenographic measurements. Radiology. Jan 1966;86(1):87-96. [Medline].
Lo LJ, Marsh JL, Yoon J, Vannier MW. Stability of fronto-orbital advancement in nonsyndromic bilateral coronal synostosis: a quantitative three-dimensional computed tomographic study. Plast Reconstr Surg. Sep 1996;98(3):393-405; discussion 406-9. [Medline].
Bayley N. The Bayley Scales of Infant Development. 2nd ed. San Antonio, Tex: The Psychological Corporation; 1993.
Kapp-Simon KA, Figueroa A, Jocher CA, Schafer M. Longitudinal assessment of mental development in infants with nonsyndromic craniosynostosis with and without cranial release and reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. Oct 1993;92(5):831-9; discussion 840-1. [Medline].
Speltz ML, Endriga MC, Mouradian WE. Presurgical and postsurgical mental and psychomotor development of infants with sagittal synostosis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. Sep 1997;34(5):374-9. [Medline].
Kapp-Simon KA. Mental development and learning disorders in children with single suture craniosynostosis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. May 1998;35(3):197-203. [Medline].
Magge SN, Westerveld M, Pruzinsky T, Persing JA. Long-term neuropsychological effects of sagittal craniosynostosis on child development. J Craniofac Surg. Jan 2002;13(1):99-104. [Medline].
Rozzelle A, Marty-Grames L, Marsh JL. Speech-language disorders in non-syndromic sagittal synostosis. Presented at: Annual Meeting of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association. Tampa, Fla: April, 1995.
Sidoti EJ Jr, Marsh JL, Marty-Grames L, Noetzel MJ. Long-term studies of metopic synostosis: frequency of cognitive impairment and behavioral disturbances. Plast Reconstr Surg. Feb 1996;97(2):276-81. [Medline].
Farran DC, Harber LA. Responses to a learning task at 6 months and IQ test performance during the preschool years. Int J Behav Dev. 1989;12:101-14.
Crowe TK, Deitz JC, Bennett FC. The relationship between the Bayley Scales of Infant Development and preschool gross motor and cognitive performance. Am J Occup Ther. Jun 1987;41(6):374-8. [Medline].
Gault DT, Renier D, Marchac D, Jones BM. Intracranial pressure and intracranial volume in children with craniosynostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg. Sep 1992;90(3):377-81. [Medline].
Renier D, Sainte-Rose C, Marchac D, Hirsch JF. Intracranial pressure in craniostenosis. J Neurosurg. Sep 1982;57(3):370-7. [Medline].
Cohen SR, Persing JA. Intracranial pressure in single-suture craniosynostosis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. May 1998;35(3):194-6. [Medline].
Arnaud E, Meneses P, Lajeunie E, et al. Postoperative mental and morphological outcome for nonsyndromic brachycephaly. Plast Reconstr Surg. Jul 2002;110(1):6-12; discussion 13. [Medline].
Gosain AK, Song L, Corrao MA, Pintar FA. Biomechanical evaluation of titanium, biodegradable plate and screw, and cyanoacrylate glue fixation systems in craniofacial surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. Mar 1998;101(3):582-91. [Medline].
Ashammakhi N, Peltoniemi H, Waris E, et al. Developments in craniomaxillofacial surgery: use of self-reinforced bioabsorbable osteofixation devices. Plast Reconstr Surg. Jul 2001;108(1):167-80. [Medline].
Francel P. Evolution of the treatment for sagittal synostosis: a personal record. In: Goodrich JT, Hall CD. Craniofacial Anomalies: Growth and Development from a Surgical Perspective. New York, NY: Thieme; 1995.
Panchal J, Marsh JL, Park TS, et al. Sagittal craniosynostosis outcome assessment for two methods and timings of intervention. Plast Reconstr Surg. May 1999;103(6):1574-84. [Medline].
Jimenez DF, Barone CM. Endoscopic craniectomy for early surgical correction of sagittal craniosynostosis. J Neurosurg. Jan 1998;88(1):77-81. [Medline].
Lauritzen C, Sugawara Y, Kocabalkan O, Olsson R. Spring mediated dynamic craniofacial reshaping. Case report. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. Sep 1998;32(3):331-8. [Medline].
Francel P, Panchal J. Metopic synostosis. In: Rengachary S, Wilkins R. Neurosurgical Operative Atlas. Vol 9. Rolling Meadows; Ill: American Association of Neurological Surgeons; 1999:91-111.
Williams JK, Cohen SR, Burstein FD, et al. A longitudinal, statistical study of reoperation rates in craniosynostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg. Aug 1997;100(2):305-10. [Medline].
Argenta LC, David LR, Wilson JA, Bell WO. An increase in infant cranial deformity with supine sleeping position. J Craniofac Surg. Jan 1996;7(1):5-11. [Medline].
Baas MB. Human osteology: a laboratory and field manual of the human skeleton. In: Evans RE. Human Osteology. Columbia, Mo: Missouri Archaeological Society, University of Missouri; 1971:54-74.
Becker DB, Fundakowski CE, Govier DP, et al. Long-term osseous morphologic outcome of surgically treated unilateral coronal craniosynostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg. Mar 2006;117(3):929-35. [Medline].
Bradley JP, Levine JP, McCarthy JG, Longaker MT. Studies in cranial suture biology: regional dura mater determines in vitro cranial suture fusion. Plast Reconstr Surg. Oct 1997;100(5):1091-9; discussion; 1100-2. [Medline].
Carmel PW, Luken MG 3rd, Ascherl GF Jr. Craniosynostosis: computed tomographic evaluation of skull base and calvarial deformities and associated intracranial changes. Neurosurgery. Oct 1981;9(4):366-72. [Medline].
Cohen SR, Mittermiller PA, Holmes RE, Broder KW. Clinical experience with a new fast-resorbing polymer for bone stabilization in craniofacial surgery. J Craniofac Surg. Jan 2006;17(1):40-3. [Medline].
Cooper GM, Singhal VK, Barbano T, et al. Intracranial volume changes in craniosynostotic rabbits: effects of age and surgical correction. Plast Reconstr Surg. May 2006;117(6):1886-90. [Medline].
Decker JD, Hall SH. Light and electron microscopy of the new born sagittal suture. Anat Rec. May 1985;212(1):81-9. [Medline].
Fearon JA, McLaughlin EB, Kolar JC. Sagittal craniosynostosis: surgical outcomes and long-term growth. Plast Reconstr Surg. Feb 2006;117(2):532-41. [Medline].
Greenberg BM, Schneider SJ. Trigonocephaly: surgical considerations and long term evaluation. J Craniofac Surg. May 2006;17(3):528-35. [Medline].
Ingraham FD, Matson DD. Neurosurgery of Infancy and Childhood. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 1954.
Kane AA, Kim YO, Eaton A, et al. Quantification of osseous facial dysmorphology in untreated unilateral coronal synostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg. Aug 2000;106(2):251-8. [Medline].
Losee JE, Mason AC. Deformational plagiocephaly: diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. Clin Plast Surg. Jan 2005;32(1):53-64, viii. [Medline].
Marchac D, Renier D. [The "floating forehead". Early treatment of craniofacial stenosis]. Ann Chir Plast. 1979;24(2):121-6. [Medline].
Marsh JL, Vannier MW. Cranial base changes following surgical treatment of craniosynostosis. Cleft Palate J. Dec 1986;23 Suppl 1:9-18. [Medline].
McCarthy JG, Epstein F, Sadove M, et al. Early surgery for craniofacial synostosis: an 8-year experience. Plast Reconstr Surg. Apr 1984;73(4):521-33. [Medline].
Meara JG, Smith EM, Harshbarger RJ, et al. Blood-conservation techniques in craniofacial surgery. Ann Plast Surg. May 2005;54(5):525-9. [Medline].
Mulliken JB, Steinberger D, Kunze S, Muller U. Molecular diagnosis of bilateral coronal synostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg. Nov 1999;104(6):1603-15. [Medline].
Mulliken JB, Warman ML. Molecular genetics and craniofacial surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. Mar 1996;97(3):666-75. [Medline].
Panchal J, Francel P. The efficacy of use of hydroxyapatite (MIMIX) in management of osseous defects of the calvarium, calvarial augmentation and malar augmentation. Presented at the American Cleft Palate Craniofacial Society Meeting. Minneapolis, Minn: April 2001.
Panchal J, Francel P. Unicoronal synostosis. In: Rengachary S, Wilkins R. Neurosurgical Operative Atlas. Vol 9. Rolling Meadows; Ill: American Association of Neurological Surgeons; 1999:103-12.
Panchal J, Hapcic K, Francel P, et al. Reossification of the orbital wall following ventral translocation of the fronto-orbital bar and cranial vault remodeling. Plast Reconstr Surg. Nov 2001;108(6):1509-14. [Medline].
Tessier P. Craniofacial surgery in syndromic craniosynostosis. In: Cohen MM. Craniosynostosis: Diagnosis, Evaluation and Management. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1986:344-5.
Virchow, R. Uber den Cretinismus, namentlich in Franken, und uber pathologische Schadelformen. Verh Phys Med Ges Wurzburg. 1851; 2: 230.
Weinzweig J, Kirschner RE, Farley A, et al. Metopic synostosis: Defining the temporal sequence of normal suture fusion and differentiating it from synostosis on the basis of computed tomography images. Plast Reconstr Surg. Oct 2003;112(5):1211-8. [Medline].
Williams JK, Ellenbogen RG, Gruss JS. State of the art in craniofacial surgery: nonsyndromic craniosynostosis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. Nov 1999;36(6):471-85. [Medline].
Podda S, Ciminello FS, Wolfe SA. Congenital, Synostoses. eMedicine from WebMD [serial online]. August 13, 2008;Accessed September 17, 2008. Available at http://www.emedicine.com/plastic/topic190.htm.
Wolfe SA, Berkowitz S, eds. Plastic Surgery of the Facial Skeleton. Boston, Mass: Little Brown; 1989:. 489.
Yano H, Tanaka K, Sueyoshi O, et al. Cranial vault distraction: its illusionary effect and limitation. Plast Reconstr Surg. Jan 2006;117(1):193-200; discussion 201. [Medline].
Further Reading
Keywords
craniosynostosis, plagiocephaly, abnormal head shapes, fused sutures, deformational plagiocephaly, head deformity, cranial deformity, cranium deformity, deformed cranium, fused cranial sutures, abnormal skull fusion, skull deformity, deformed skull, scaphocephaly, boat skull, brachycephaly, short skull, unicoronal synostosis, trigonocephaly, triangular skull, lambdoid synostosis, oxycephaly, turricephaly, towering skull, kleeblattschadel, cloverleaf skull, ICP, increased intracranial pressure, craniotomy, increased ICP, sagittal synostosis, bicoronal synostosis, metopic synostosis
