Background:
There have been few longitudinal studies assessing the effect of preoperative phenotypic severity on long-term esthetic outcomes in metopic craniosynostosis. This study evaluates the relationship between metopic severity and long-term esthetic outcomes using interfrontal angle (IFA) and CranioRate, a novel metopic synostosis severity measure.
Methods:
Patients with metopic craniosynostosis who underwent bifrontal orbital advancement and remodeling between 2012 and 2017 were reviewed. Preoperative computed tomography head scans were analyzed for IFA and CranioRate, a machine learning algorithm which generates quantitative severity ratings including metopic severity score (MSS) and cranial morphology deviation (CMD). Long-term esthetic outcomes were assessed by craniofacial surgeons using blinded 3-rater esthetic grading of clinical photos. Raters assessed Whitaker score and the presence of temporal hollowing, lateral orbital retrusion, frontal bone irregularities and/or “any visible irregularities.”
Results:
Preoperative scans were performed at a mean age of 7.7±3.4 months, with average MSS of 6/10, CMD of 200/300, and IFA of 116.8±13.8 degrees. Patients underwent bifrontal orbital advancement and remodeling at mean 9.9±3.1 months. The average time from operation to esthetic assessment was 5.4±1.0 years. Pearson correlation revealed a significant negative correlation between MSS and age at computed tomography (r=−0.451, P=0.004) and IFA (r=−0.371, P=0.034) and between IFA and age at surgery (r=−0.383, P=0.018). In multinomial logistic regression, preoperative MSS was the only independent predictor of visible irregularities (odds ratio=2.18, B=0.780, P=0.024) and preoperative IFA alone significantly predicted Whitaker score, with more acute IFA predicting worse Whitaker score (odds ratio=0.928, B=−0.074, P=0.928).
Conclusions:
More severe preoperative phenotypes of metopic craniosynostosis were associated with worse esthetic dysmorphology. Objective measures of preoperative metopic severity predicted long-term esthetic outcomes.
:
Prenatal diagnosis of congenital anomalies is associated with increased parental stress. Surgical prenatal counseling for parents expecting a child with an orofacial cleft has been shown to reduce parental anxiety through education and expectation setting. Despite the prevalence and significance of these conditions throughout the world, little is known of international counseling practices as they pertain to clefts and other craniofacial conditions, specifically regarding topics of counseling and discussions of ethical issues including interruption of pregnancy (IOP).
In this study, 50 members of the International Society of Craniofacial Surgery, representing 18 countries, were surveyed. The questionnaire included questions about the number of consultations performed, for which conditions, setting of practice, and regional regulations pertaining to IOP. The authors report that the most frequent topics of discussion included initial treatment of clefts (89%), future surgeries (89%), and speech/language difficulties (85%). North American surgeons more frequently discussed cleft appearance (100%) thansurgeons from Central/SouthAmerica (64%) or Europe (64%, P = 0.019). Overall, 46% of surgeons surveyed believe it is ethical to give parents their opinion on IOP when asked. European surgeons were more likely to report that parents want to receive information about IOP at prenatal consultations (82%), compared to 25% from North America and 8% from Central/South America (P < 0.001). The authors conclude that despite a lack of standard guidelines on conducting prenatal counseling appointments for cleft and craniofacial conditions, discussion topics were similar across country, practice type, and surgeon experience.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.