Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
European Journal of Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. van der Meulen J (2012) Metopic synostosis. Child’s Nerv Syst 28(9):1359–1367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):283–286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):527–532

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1211–1218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Eppley BL, Sadove AM (1994) Surgical correction of metopic suture synostosis. Clin Plast Surg 21(4):555–562

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mathes SJ, Hentz VR (2006) Plastic surgery, vol 2. Elsevier, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  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):6–13

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):980–985

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hinojosa J (2012) Endoscopic-assisted treatment of trigonocephaly. Child’s Nerv Syst 28(9):1381–1387

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Jimenez DF, Barone CM (2007) Early treatment of anterior calvarial craniosynostosis using endoscopic-assisted minimally invasive techniques. Child’s Nerv Syst 23(12):1411–1419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sgouros S, Goldin JH, Hockley AD, Wake MJ, Natarajan K (1999) Intracranial volume change in childhood. J Neurosurg 91(4):610–616

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Blinkov SM, Glezer L (1968) The human brain in figures and tables; a quantitative handbook. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  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):88–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):620–626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Barone CM, Jimenez DF (1999) Endoscopic craniectomy for early correction of craniosynostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg 104(7):1965–1973, discussion 1974-1965

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):165–170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):E5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):799–804

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Beckett JS, Chadha P, Persing JA, Steinbacher DM (2012) Classification of trigonocephaly in metopic synostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg 130(3):442e–447e

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 324-315

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Proctor MR (2012) Endoscopic cranial suture release for the treatment of craniosynostosis—is it the future? J Craniofac Surg 23(1):225–228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nguyen C, Hernandez-Boussard T, Khosla RK, Curtin CM (2013) A national study on craniosynostosis surgical repair. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J 50(5):555–560

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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

Conflicts of Interest

None

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Plastic Surgery, Stratton Albany Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Albany, NY, USA

    Andrew H. Huang

  2. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA

    Gary B. Skolnick

Authors
  1. Andrew H. Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gary B. Skolnick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew H. Huang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Huang, A.H., Skolnick, G.B. Forehead contour and hypotelorism in patients with metopic craniosynostosis: comparing minimally invasive and open treatments. Eur J Plast Surg 37, 189–194 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-013-0912-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-013-0912-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation