What's in a Name? Accurately Diagnosing Metopic Craniosynostosis Using a Computational Approach
- PMID: 26710024
- DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001938
What's in a Name? Accurately Diagnosing Metopic Craniosynostosis Using a Computational Approach
Abstract
Background: The metopic suture is unlike other cranial sutures in that it normally closes in infancy. Consequently, the diagnosis of metopic synostosis depends primarily on a subjective assessment of cranial shape. The purpose of this study was to create a simple, reproducible radiographic method to quantify forehead shape and distinguish trigonocephaly from normal cranial shape variation.
Methods: Computed tomography scans were acquired for 92 control patients (mean age, 4.2 ± 3.3 months) and 18 patients (mean age, 6.2 ± 3.3 months) with a diagnosis of metopic synostosis. A statistical model of the normal cranial shape was constructed, and deformation fields were calculated for patients with metopic synostosis. Optimal and divergence (simplified) interfrontal angles (IFA) were defined based on the three points of maximum average deformation on the frontal bones and metopic suture, respectively. Statistical analysis was performed to assess the accuracy and reliability of the diagnostic procedure.
Results: The optimal interfrontal angle was found to be significantly different between the synostosis (116.5 ± 5.8 degrees; minimum, 106.8 degrees; maximum, 126.6 degrees) and control (136.7 ± 6.2 degrees; minimum, 123.8 degrees; maximum, 169.3 degrees) groups (p < 0.001). Divergence interfrontal angles were also significantly different between groups. Accuracy, in terms of available clinical diagnosis, for the optimal and divergent angles, was 0.981 and 0.954, respectively.
Conclusions: Cranial shape analysis provides an objective and extremely accurate measure by which to diagnose abnormal interfrontal narrowing, the hallmark of metopic synostosis. The simple planar angle measurement proposed is reproducible and accurate, and can eliminate diagnostic subjectivity in this disorder.
Clinical question/level of evidence: Diagnostic, IV.
Comment in
-
Discussion: What's in a Name? Accurately Diagnosing Metopic Craniosynostosis Using a Computational Approach.Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Jan;137(1):214-215. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001943. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016. PMID: 26710025 No abstract available.
References
-
- Clayman MA, Murad GJ, Steele MH, Seagle MB, Pincus DW. History of craniosynostosis surgery and the evolution of minimally invasive endoscopic techniques: The University of Florida experience. Ann Plast Surg. 2007;58:285–287
-
- 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. 2003;112:1211–1218
-
- Vu HL, Panchal J, Parker EE, Levine NS, Francel P. 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. 2001;12:527–532
-
- Kellogg R, Allori AC, Rogers GF, Marcus JR. Interfrontal angle for characterization of trigonocephaly: Part 1. Development and validation of a tool for diagnosis of metopic synostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2012;23:799–804
-
- Beckett JS, Chadha P, Persing JA, Steinbacher DM. Classification of trigonocephaly in metopic synostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130:442e–447e
Publication types
MeSH terms
Supplementary concepts
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials