Comparison of Surgical Techniques in Managing Craniosynostosis: Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis
Open total cranial vault reconstruction (CVR) is the common procedure in managing craniosynostosis, yet more techniques have been introduced as alternatives, namely endoscopic suturectomy (ES), endoscopy-assisted craniectomy (EC), spring-assisted surgery (SAS), strip craniectomy with helmet (SC), Pi...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2024-10-01
|
| Series: | Surgeries |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2673-4095/5/4/78 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Open total cranial vault reconstruction (CVR) is the common procedure in managing craniosynostosis, yet more techniques have been introduced as alternatives, namely endoscopic suturectomy (ES), endoscopy-assisted craniectomy (EC), spring-assisted surgery (SAS), strip craniectomy with helmet (SC), Pi craniectomy (PiC), Pi plasty (PiP), and Renier’s “H” technique (RH). The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of craniosynostosis surgeries in improving the cephalic index of the patients. Studies published until 7 March 2024 reporting CVR, ES, SAS, SC, RH, and PiP as definitive craniosynostosis management with the cephalic index as the outcome were included. Bayesian network meta-analysis and pair-wise meta-analysis were performed using a random-effects model based on standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Nine studies published in 2008–2024 recruiting a total of 464 craniosynostosis patients (age: 18–61 months) were included in this meta-analysis. EC (SMD = 0.23 [95%CI: −5.47 to 5.63]; <i>p</i> = 0.935), PiP (SMD = −0.07 [95%CI: −9.27 to 8.79]; <i>p</i> = 0.988), ES (SMD = −0.59 [95%CI: −6.07 to 4.94]; <i>p</i> = 0.834), PiC (SMD = −1.16 [95%CI: −8.89 to 6.35]; <i>p</i> = 0.765), RH (SMD = −0.96 [95%CI: −6.62 to 4.53]; <i>p</i> = 0.736), SAS (SMD = −0.86 [95%CI: −8.25 to 6.18]; <i>p</i> = 0.815), and SC (SMD = −1.79 [95%CI: −9.05 to 5.28]; <i>p</i> = 0.624) were found to be as effective as CVR in improving the cephalic index. Network meta-analysis suggests that PiP is the most effective among these techniques (rank 1 probability = 0.273). According to the rank probabilities of our model the order of techniques from the most to the least effective is as follows: EC > CVR > PiP > ES > SAS > RH > PiC > SC. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2673-4095 |