European Journal of Plastic Surgery

, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp 189–194 | Cite as

Forehead contour and hypotelorism in patients with metopic craniosynostosis: comparing minimally invasive and open treatments

Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Background

Patients with metopic craniosynostosis and trigonocephaly are classically treated with a fronto-orbital advancement. In contrast, a minimally invasive treatment entails a narrow ostectomy of the fused suture, followed by postoperative helmet molding. The goal of this project was to investigate the results of patients treated with minimally invasive techniques by quantifying the deformity of the forehead contour a year after their operation and comparing these measurements to patients who underwent an open operation as a control.

Methods

The 1-year postoperative computed tomography (CT) scans of patients treated with minimally invasive techniques for metopic craniosynostosis (n = 10) were compared to CT scans of patients treated with an open operation (n = 20). The straight line measurements between the zygomaticofrontal (ZF) sutures and between the dacryon bilaterally were recorded to assess the degree of hypotelorism. An axial plane two-dimensional angle between frontotemporale bilaterally and the glabella (FTR-G-FTL) was used as a measurement of the severity of trigonocephaly.

Results

The average age of patients at surgery for minimally invasive cases was 3.4 ± 0.5 months old (mean ± standard error of the mean) compared with the age of patients for open cases at 11.3 ± 0.6 months old. Seventy percent of the patients were males and 30 % were females in both the minimally invasive and open groups. The mean distance between the ZF sutures was 76.3 ± 1.9 mm in the minimally invasive group and 75.9 ± 1.2 mm in the open group (p = 0.90). The mean distance between the dacryon bilaterally was 15.1 ± 1.0 mm in the minimally invasive group and 14.5 ± 0.6 mm in the open group (p = 0.63). The FTR-G-FTL angle was 118.5° ± 13.2° in the minimally invasive group and 113.1° ± 2.0° in the open group (p = 0.21).

Conclusions

In this small, retrospective series, minimally invasive treatment of metopic craniosynostosis appears to have equivalent results to open fronto-orbital advancement in terms of the acuity of trigonocephalic forehead angle and hypotelorism at 1-year follow-up. Additional studies are being conducted to better quantify, validate, and compare these measurements. The end goal is to elucidate the best methods of quantifying normal forehead contours and to determine if minimally invasive treatment is equivalent to the open approach.

Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Keywords

Metopic craniosynostosis Fronto-orbital advancement Minimally invasive Suturectomy Trigonocephaly Hypotelorism 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the St. Louis Children’s Hospital Foundation–Children’s Surgical Sciences Institute.

Conflicts of Interest

None

References

  1. 1.
    van der Meulen J (2012) Metopic synostosis. Child’s Nerv Syst 28(9):1359–1367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Meulen J, van der Hulst R, van Adrichem L, Arnaud E, Chin-Shong D, Duncan C, Habets E, Hinojosa J, Mathijssen I, May P, Morritt D, Nishikawa H, Noons P, Richardson D, Wall S, van der Vlugt J, Renier D (2009) The increase of metopic synostosis: a pan-European observation. J Craniofac Surg 20(2):283–286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vu HL, Panchal J, Parker EE, Levine NS, Francel P (2001) 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 12(6):527–532PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weinzweig J, Kirschner RE, Farley A, Reiss P, Hunter J, Whitaker LA, Bartlett SP (2003) Metopic synostosis: defining the temporal sequence of normal suture fusion and differentiating it from synostosis on the basis of computed tomography images. Oper Tech Plast Reconstr Surg 112(5):1211–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eppley BL, Sadove AM (1994) Surgical correction of metopic suture synostosis. Clin Plast Surg 21(4):555–562PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mathes SJ, Hentz VR (2006) Plastic surgery, vol 2. Elsevier, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Selber J, Reid RR, Gershman B, Sonnad SS, Sutton LN, Whitaker LA, Bartlett SP (2007) Evolution of operative techniques for the treatment of single-suture metopic synostosis. Ann Plast Surg 59(1):6–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Oh AK, Greene AK, Mulliken JB, Rogers GF (2006) Prevention of temporal depression that follows fronto-orbital advancement for craniosynostosis. J Craniofac Surg 17(5):980–985PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hinojosa J (2012) Endoscopic-assisted treatment of trigonocephaly. Child’s Nerv Syst 28(9):1381–1387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jimenez DF, Barone CM (2007) Early treatment of anterior calvarial craniosynostosis using endoscopic-assisted minimally invasive techniques. Child’s Nerv Syst 23(12):1411–1419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sgouros S, Goldin JH, Hockley AD, Wake MJ, Natarajan K (1999) Intracranial volume change in childhood. J Neurosurg 91(4):610–616PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blinkov SM, Glezer L (1968) The human brain in figures and tables; a quantitative handbook. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Abbott MM, Rogers GF, Proctor MR, Busa K, Meara JG (2012) Cost of treating sagittal synostosis in the first year of life. J Craniofac Surg 23(1):88–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ridgway EB, Berry-Candelario J, Grondin RT, Rogers GF, Proctor MR (2011) The management of sagittal synostosis using endoscopic suturectomy and postoperative helmet therapy. J Neurosurg Pediatr 7(6):620–626PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barone CM, Jimenez DF (1999) Endoscopic craniectomy for early correction of craniosynostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg 104(7):1965–1973, discussion 1974-1965PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shah MN, Kane AA, Petersen JD, Woo AS, Naidoo SD, Smyth MD (2011) Endoscopically assisted versus open repair of sagittal craniosynostosis: the St Louis Children’s Hospital experience. J Neurosurg Pediatr 8(2):165–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berry-Candelario J, Ridgway EB, Grondin RT, Rogers GF, Proctor MR (2011) Endoscope-assisted strip craniectomy and postoperative helmet therapy for treatment of craniosynostosis. Neurosurg Focus 31(2):E5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kellogg R, Allori AC, Rogers GF, Marcus JR (2012) Interfrontal angle for characterization of trigonocephaly: part 1: development and validation of a tool for diagnosis of metopic synostosis. J Craniofac Surg 23(3):799–804PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beckett JS, Chadha P, Persing JA, Steinbacher DM (2012) Classification of trigonocephaly in metopic synostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg 130(3):442e–447ePubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ruiz-Correa S, Starr JR, Lin HJ, Kapp-Simon KA, Sze RW, Ellenbogen RG, Speltz ML, Cunningham ML (2008) New severity indices for quantifying single-suture metopic craniosynostosis. Neurosurgery 63(2):318–324, discussion 324-315PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Proctor MR (2012) Endoscopic cranial suture release for the treatment of craniosynostosis—is it the future? J Craniofac Surg 23(1):225–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nguyen C, Hernandez-Boussard T, Khosla RK, Curtin CM (2013) A national study on craniosynostosis surgical repair. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J 50(5):555–560PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Plastic SurgeryStratton Albany Veterans Affairs Medical CenterAlbanyUSA
  2. 2.Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of SurgeryWashington University School of MedicineSaint LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations