The Journal of craniofacial surgery · 2024
Comparative Analysis of Patient-reported Outcomes After Cranial Vault Remodeling and Strip Craniectomy With the FACE-Q Craniofacial Module.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bello Margaret A, Mercho Patrick F, Gupta Salil, Shirrell Mariah, Tran Khoa D, Cordes Emma J, Tholpady Sunil, Ackerman Laurie L, Makar Katelyn G
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The debate continues among craniofacial surgeons regarding the effectiveness of strip craniectomy (SC) compared with cranial vault remodeling (CVR) in achieving optimal functional and aesthetic outcomes in patients with single-suture craniosynostosis. This study aimed to compare long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between SC and CVR procedures at a single institution using the validated FACE-Q Craniofacial module.
METHODS: Patients older than or equal to 8 years of age and parents of patients younger than 8 years of age who underwent SC or CVR for single-suture craniosynostosis were eligible. Patients with <2 years of follow-up, lambdoid synostosis, and syndromes were excluded. Primary endpoints were PROs as measured by the FACE-Q, with higher scores indicating increased health-related quality of life. Linear regression was used to control for covariates.
RESULTS: Sixty-two participants completed the module (response rate 33.3%). SC was performed in 29 patients (46.8%), and CVR in 33 patients (53.2%). On unadjusted bivariate analysis, SC patients had higher eye ( P =0.03) and forehead ( P =0.05) scores. On regression analysis, controlling for sex, race, craniosynostosis type, and follow-up, there were no significant differences between operation types in any domain. Metopic and sagittal synostosis were associated with higher Eye (metopic: 17.61, P =0.049; sagittal: 41.44, P <0.001) and Head scores (metopic: 48.12, P =0.001; sagittal: 49.35, P <0.001), and sagittal synostosis was associated with higher Face (38.16, P <0.001), Forehead (55.93, P <0.001), and Nose scores (19.28, P =0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: From patients' and parents' perspectives at a single institution, SC and CVR were equivalent regarding aesthetics and health-related quality of life.
METHODS: Patients older than or equal to 8 years of age and parents of patients younger than 8 years of age who underwent SC or CVR for single-suture craniosynostosis were eligible. Patients with <2 years of follow-up, lambdoid synostosis, and syndromes were excluded. Primary endpoints were PROs as measured by the FACE-Q, with higher scores indicating increased health-related quality of life. Linear regression was used to control for covariates.
RESULTS: Sixty-two participants completed the module (response rate 33.3%). SC was performed in 29 patients (46.8%), and CVR in 33 patients (53.2%). On unadjusted bivariate analysis, SC patients had higher eye ( P =0.03) and forehead ( P =0.05) scores. On regression analysis, controlling for sex, race, craniosynostosis type, and follow-up, there were no significant differences between operation types in any domain. Metopic and sagittal synostosis were associated with higher Eye (metopic: 17.61, P =0.049; sagittal: 41.44, P <0.001) and Head scores (metopic: 48.12, P =0.001; sagittal: 49.35, P <0.001), and sagittal synostosis was associated with higher Face (38.16, P <0.001), Forehead (55.93, P <0.001), and Nose scores (19.28, P =0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: From patients' and parents' perspectives at a single institution, SC and CVR were equivalent regarding aesthetics and health-related quality of life.