These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Assessment of spring cranioplasty biomechanics in sagittal craniosynostosis patients.
    Author: Borghi A, Schievano S, Rodriguez Florez N, McNicholas R, Rodgers W, Ponniah A, James G, Hayward R, Dunaway D, Jeelani NUO.
    Journal: J Neurosurg Pediatr; 2017 Nov; 20(5):400-409. PubMed ID: 28841110.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE Scaphocephaly secondary to sagittal craniosynostosis has been treated in recent years with spring-assisted cranioplasty, an innovative approach that leverages the use of metallic spring distractors to reshape the patient skull. In this study, a population of patients who had undergone spring cranioplasty for the correction of scaphocephaly at the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children was retrospectively analyzed to systematically assess spring biomechanical performance and kinematics in relation to spring model, patient age, and outcomes over time. METHODS Data from 60 patients (49 males, mean age at surgery 5.2 ± 0.9 months) who had received 2 springs for the treatment of isolated sagittal craniosynostosis were analyzed. The opening distance of the springs at the time of insertion and removal was retrieved from the surgical notes and, during the implantation period, from planar radiographs obtained at 1 day postoperatively and at the 3-week follow-up. The force exerted by the spring to the patient skull at each time point was derived after mechanical testing of each spring model-3 devices with the same geometry but different wire thicknesses. Changes in the cephalic index between preoperatively and the 3-week follow-up were recorded. RESULTS Stiffer springs were implanted in older patients (p < 0.05) to achieve the same opening on-table as in younger patients, but this entailed significantly different-higher-forces exerted on the skull when combinations of stiffer springs were used (p < 0.001). After initial force differences between spring models, however, the devices all plateaued. Indeed, regardless of patient age or spring model, after 10 days from insertion, all the devices were open. CONCLUSIONS Results in this study provide biomechanical insights into spring-assisted cranioplasty and could help to improve spring design and follow-up strategy in the future.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]