Comparative Analysis of Patient-reported Outcomes After Cranial Vault Remodeling and Strip Craniectomy With the FACE-Q Craniofacial Module

Margaret A Bello; Patrick F Mercho; Salil Gupta; Mariah Shirrell; Khoa D Tran; Emma J Cordes; Sunil Tholpady; Laurie L Ackerman; Katelyn G Makar

doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000010857

Comparative Analysis of Patient-reported Outcomes After Cranial Vault Remodeling and Strip Craniectomy With the FACE-Q Craniofacial Module

J Craniofac Surg. 2024 Nov 7. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000010857. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Margaret A Bello¹, Patrick F Mercho², Salil Gupta², Mariah Shirrell², Khoa D Tran², Emma J Cordes³, Sunil Tholpady³, Laurie L Ackerman⁴, Katelyn G Makar³

Affiliations

¹ Department of Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR.
² Indiana University School of Medicine.
³ Division of Plastic Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine.
⁴ John E. Kalsebeck Professor of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Department of Neurological Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN.

PMID: 39509716
DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000010857

Abstract

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.