Journal of clinical neuroscience : official journal of the Neurosurgical Society of Australasia · 2025
Helmet versus non-helmet treatment in infants with positional cranial deformation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание 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.
de Sousa Yan Gondim, Marques Lopes Thiago Luís, Soares Áquila Matos, Cavalcante Marconny Alexandre, Rangel Júlio Farias, de Macedo Filho Leonardo, Balsells Mateus Dutra, Gervásio Daniel Andrade, de Melo Pereira Isabela Fernandes, Duarte de Queiroz Andressa Gabriella, de Almeida Miguel Vieira, Amorim Neto George Pessoa, Urbano Cavalcante Cintia Gonçalves, Freitas de Albuquerque Lucas Alverne
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Active repositioning and cranial orthoses are the primary treatment choices for positional cranial deformation (CD). However, the superiority of helmet therapy over non-helmet therapies remains controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis of cranial asymmetry (CA) parameters from studies comparing helmet therapy to non-helmet therapy in infants with non-synostotic CD.
METHODS: We systematically reviewed the literature from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Exclusion criteria included lack of a control group, overlapping populations, and solely qualitative outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4.1.
RESULTS: From the 788 articles identified, 13 were included, with 1189 infant patients. Treatment outcomes were measured using the Cranial Vault Asymmetry Index (CVAI), Cranial Index, and Diagonal Difference. From 10 studies incorporating all three scales, helmet were used in 509/980 (52 %) patients. The average follow-up period was 20.95 ± 23.84 months. The reduction in CA (SMD: -1.16; 95 % CI: [-1.66, -0.67]; p < 0.00001; I2 = 90 %) was more pronounced in the helmet group. Using only CVAI, there was a more significant improvement in CA (SMD: -1.29; 95 % CI: [-1.97, -0.62]; p = 0.0002; I2 = 90 %) in the helmet group. When subdividing the non-helmet group into natural course and repositioning, there are greater improvements in the helmet group, both in relation to the natural course group (SMD: -1.37; 95 % CI: [-2.31, -0.43]; p = 0.004; I2 = 94 %) and in relation to the repositioning group (SMD: -1.16; 95 % CI: [-2.01, -0.31]; p = 0.008; I2 = 64 %). Comparing only CVAI for the helmet group, we observed a significant decrease (SMD: -1.70; 95 % CI: [-2.01, -1.39]; p < 0.00001; I2 = 48 %) compared to the non-helmet group (SMD: -0.54; 95 % CI: [-0.79, -0.29]; p < 0.0001; I2 = 25 %).
CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that, in the short term, helmet therapy is significantly more effective in correcting cranial positional deformities than therapy that does not use orthoses. Nonetheless, due to study limitations and high heterogeneity, caution is necessary in interpreting these results and their clinical application. More high-quality randomized clinical trials are necessary to confirm these findings and assess the long-term effects of helmet therapy.
METHODS: We systematically reviewed the literature from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Exclusion criteria included lack of a control group, overlapping populations, and solely qualitative outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4.1.
RESULTS: From the 788 articles identified, 13 were included, with 1189 infant patients. Treatment outcomes were measured using the Cranial Vault Asymmetry Index (CVAI), Cranial Index, and Diagonal Difference. From 10 studies incorporating all three scales, helmet were used in 509/980 (52 %) patients. The average follow-up period was 20.95 ± 23.84 months. The reduction in CA (SMD: -1.16; 95 % CI: [-1.66, -0.67]; p < 0.00001; I2 = 90 %) was more pronounced in the helmet group. Using only CVAI, there was a more significant improvement in CA (SMD: -1.29; 95 % CI: [-1.97, -0.62]; p = 0.0002; I2 = 90 %) in the helmet group. When subdividing the non-helmet group into natural course and repositioning, there are greater improvements in the helmet group, both in relation to the natural course group (SMD: -1.37; 95 % CI: [-2.31, -0.43]; p = 0.004; I2 = 94 %) and in relation to the repositioning group (SMD: -1.16; 95 % CI: [-2.01, -0.31]; p = 0.008; I2 = 64 %). Comparing only CVAI for the helmet group, we observed a significant decrease (SMD: -1.70; 95 % CI: [-2.01, -1.39]; p < 0.00001; I2 = 48 %) compared to the non-helmet group (SMD: -0.54; 95 % CI: [-0.79, -0.29]; p < 0.0001; I2 = 25 %).
CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that, in the short term, helmet therapy is significantly more effective in correcting cranial positional deformities than therapy that does not use orthoses. Nonetheless, due to study limitations and high heterogeneity, caution is necessary in interpreting these results and their clinical application. More high-quality randomized clinical trials are necessary to confirm these findings and assess the long-term effects of helmet therapy.