Optimizing Reconstruction in Craniosynostosis: Review of Nonsyndromic Patients Treated With a Novel Technique.

PURPOSE: Open cranial vault remodeling (CVR) with autologous split calvarial bone grafts redistributes and recontours an abnormal calvarium to create an expanded cranial vault in patients with craniosynostosis. We report a 12-year retrospective review of 162 nonsyndromic patients who underwent operative repair using our previously-described technique which portends excellent surgical outcomes and can be applied to patients of any age group and with any variety of suture fusion. METHODS: Data was gathered on patients who underwent CVR from 2005 to 2016. Surgical records for each patient were analyzed and included operative time, estimated blood loss, and intraoperative transfusion volumes. Intraoperative and postoperative complications, the need for revision surgery, postoperative length of stay, and follow-up records were also reviewed. Syndromic patients were excluded, as well as patients with incomplete data sets. Patients who underwent either anterior or posterior vault remodeling were compared. RESULTS: A total of 162 patients were included in this case series. Patients undergoing anterior CVR were significantly older than those undergoing posterior CVR (13.3 versus 11.0 months, P < 0.015) and also had significantly greater intraoperative red blood transfusion volumes (20.3 versus 15.3cc/kg, P < 0.0207) and longer operative time than posterior CVR patients (274.9 versus 216.7 minutes, P < 0.0001). No patients required reoperation for resorption or recurrence or persistent contour irregularities. There were no visual or neurological complications. Calvarial bone was successfully split in 100% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: This surgical approach to CVR results in good surgical outcomes with a low recurrence rate, while also maximizing operative efficiency, and minimizing total blood loss and transfusion volume. This technique can be applied to any affected suture in a patient with craniosynostosis and in patients of any age group.

The limits of endoscopic endonasal approaches in young children: a review.

INTRODUCTION: The endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) provides visualization of four deep surgical corridors (transcribiform, transtubercular, transsellar, and transclival) with superior illumination and specialized deep-reaching instruments, as compared to microscopic techniques. Several studies have evaluated EEAs in children but do not stratify for the very young of age, whose particularly small nares and developmental anatomy may limit endonasal instrumentation. METHODOLOGY: A comprehensive review of EEAs in infants and children to age 4 was performed to determine the limitations in this age group. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were identified describing this approach for pediatric patients and the surgical caveats and limitations were reviewed. In very small children, CSF leaks, meningioencephaloceles, tumors of the anterior skull base, and lesions at the rostral cervical spine have been successfully treated endonasally. While newer studies advocate using 2.7-mm diameter (18-cm length) lenses, 4-mm diameter rigid lenses have been used without technical difficulty. The youngest patient in whom an EEA was used was a 6-week-old for a dermoid resection. Some have advocated that due to the small nares, approaches via bilateral entry are optimal for multiple instruments, however, others, including authors of a series of 28 repaired CSF leaks demonstrate successful single nare access. DISCUSSION: EEAs are associated with less blood loss, are less likely to hinder normal growth of the skull and midface, and allow for the resection of even malignant lesions. Despite the limitations of the frontal, ethmoid, and sphenoid sinuses before age 3, reports have not documented insurmountable difficulty with EEAs even in infants. 2.7-mm diameter endoscopes are favored unilaterally or bilaterally to treat both benign and malignant lesions and preserve the young patient's facial anatomy better than older methods. Ever improving technology has facilitated the use of this approach in patients it would otherwise be infeasible for in the past, but it still cannot overcome the anatomical constraints of certain young patients in which this approach remains unindicated. Patient selection is therefore of utmost importance and the risks and benefits of more extensive approaches in these cases must be considered.

Two cases of 16th century head injuries managed in royal European families.

In Europe, during the 16th century, there were a number of prominent general surgeons adventurous enough to consider operating on the brain for head injuries. From the time of Hippocrates, operating on the skull and brain was considered both treacherous and too dangerous to be undertaken except on rare occasions. Operating on a member of a royal court was considered even more exceptional because if the outcome was poor, the surgeon could lose a hand or limb, or, even worse, be beheaded. The authors present two interesting cases of royal family members who underwent surgery for head injuries that were quite severe. The surgeons involved, Ambroise Paré, Andreas Vesalius, and Berengario da Carpi, were among the most prominent surgeons in Europe. Despite very challenging political situations, all were willing to undertake a complex surgical intervention on the member of a prominent royal family. The individuals involved, both royal and medical, plus the neurosurgical injuries are discussed.