Partial intracranial volumes in metopic synostosis – pre- and postoperative comparisons with healthy controls
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/jphs.v60.44913Keywords:
Metopic synostosis, intracranial volume, partial intracranial volume, frontal volume, interfrontal angle, fronto-orbital advancementAbstract
Surgical intervention for metopic synostosis has been much debated but aims to correct trigonocephaly and hypotelorism while ensuring enough space for undisturbed brain growth. The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in partial intracranial volumes and the interfrontal angle following fronto-orbital advancement. Twenty-six non-syndromic metopic synostosis patients treated with fronto-orbital advancement at Uppsala University Hospital between 2012 and 2022 who had undergone computed tomography preoperatively and at age three were included, as well as 40 age- and sex-matched controls who had undergone computed tomography for post-traumatic evaluation. Demographic information, imaging, pre-, peri-, and postoperative data were collected. The frontal-, middle-, and posterior intracranial volume and their relative distribution were calculated in the softwares Craniosyn and ITK-SNAP 3.8.0. Preoperatively, patients had smaller interfrontal angles (p < 0.001), total intracranial volumes (p = 0.03), and frontal volumes (p = 0.02), compared with controls. At age three, the total intracranial volume (p = 0.96) and frontal volume (p = 0.51) did not differ significantly between patients and controls, whereas the interfrontal angle remained smaller in the synostosis group (p < 0.001). The relative intracranial volume distribution between frontal-, middle-, and posterior volumes did not match the distribution in healthy controls pre- or postoperatively, where the middle volume ratio was notably greater, and both the frontal- and posterior volume ratios were smaller in patients. Fronto-orbital advancement and subsequent growth improve the total- and partial intracranial volume in metopic synostosis to match the volumes of healthy controls at age three but does not restore the relative intracranial volume distribution.
Downloads
References
van der Meulen J. Metopic synostosis. Child’s Nerv Syst. 2012; 28(9): 1359–1367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-012-1803-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-012-1803-z
Nguyen DC, Patel KB, Skolnick GB, et al. Are endoscopic and open treatments of metopic synostosis equivalent in treating trigonocephaly and hypotelorism? J Craniofac Surg. 2015; 26(1): 129–134. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000001321 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000001321
Hormozi AK, Shahverdiani R, Mohammadi HR, et al. Surgical treatment of metopic synostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2011; 22(1): 261–265. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181f7b80c DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181f7b80c
Yan Q, He J, Gao Z, et al. Evaluation of fronto-orbital reconstruction surgery for the treatment of metopic synostosis in Chinese population. Child’s Nerv Syst. 2021; 37(4): 1167–1174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-020-04977-w DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-020-04977-w
Wes AM, Paliga JT, Goldstein JA, et al. An evaluation of complications, revisions, and long-term aesthetic outcomes in nonsyndromic metopic craniosynostosis. Plastic Reconstr Surg (1963). 2014; 133(6): 1453–1464. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000223 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000223
Taşkapılıoğlu MÖ, Ocakoğlu G, Kaya S, et al. Statistical shape analyses of trigonocephaly patients. Child’s Nerv Syst. 2020; 36(2): 379–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-019-04269-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-019-04269-y
Francis CS, Shetty A, Frank R, et al. In situ Fronto-Orbital advancement with medial orbital osteotomies for trigonocephaly-associated hypotelorism. J Craniofac Surg. 2011; 22(1): 281–284. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181fb8851 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181fb8851
Hicdonmez T. Children with metopic ridge. Turk Neurosurg. 2017; 27(4): 585–589.
Natghian H, Song M, Jayamohan J, et al. Long-term results in isolated metopic synostosis: the Oxford expe-rience over 22 years. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018; 142(4): 509e–515e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000004768 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000004768
Selber J, Reid RR, Gershman B, et al. Evolution of operative techniques for the treatment of single-suture metopic synostosis. Ann Plastic Surg. 2007; 59(1): 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sap.0000264836.54760.32 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sap.0000264836.54760.32
Tarnow P, Kölby L, Maltese G, et al. Incidence of non-syndromic and syndromic craniosynostosis in Sweden. J Craniofac Surg. 2022; 33(5): 1517–1520. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000008457
Kolar JC. An epidemiological study of nonsyndromal craniosynostoses. J Craniofac Surg. 2011; 22(1): 47–49. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181f6c2fb DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181f6c2fb
Cornelissen M, Ottelander B, Rizopoulos D, et al. Increase of prevalence of craniosynostosis. J Craniomaxillo-fac Surg. 2016; 44(9): 1273–1279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2016.07.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2016.07.007
Vinchon M. The metopic suture: natural history. Neuro-chirurgie. 2019; 65(5): 239–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuchi.2019.09.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuchi.2019.09.006
Bloch K, Geoffroy M, Taverne M, et al. New diagnostic criteria for metopic ridges and trigonocephaly: a 3D geometric approach. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2024; 19(1): 204. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-024-03197-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-024-03197-8
Geoffroy M, François PM, Khonsari RH, et al. Paediatric skull growth models: a systematic review of applica-tions to normal skulls and craniosynostoses. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022; 123(5): e533–e543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2022.01.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2022.01.002
Almeida MN, Alper DP, Parikh N, et al. Comparison of emotional and behavioral regulation between metopic and sagittal synostosis. Childs Nerv Syst. 2024; 40(9): 2789–2799. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-024-06387-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-024-06387-8
Junn AH, Long AS, Hauc SC, et al. Long-term neurocognitive outcomes in 204 single-suture craniosynostosis patients. Childs Nerv Syst. 2023; 39(7): 1921–1928. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-023-05908-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-023-05908-1
Long AS, Hauc SC, Almeida MN, et al. Morphologic severity and age at surgery are associated with school-age neurocognitive outcomes in metopic craniosynostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2024; 154(4): 824–835. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000010999 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000010999
Alperovich M, Tonello C, Mayes LC, Kahle KT. Non-syndromic craniosynostosis. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2025; 11(1): 24. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-025-00607-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-025-00607-4
Almeida MN, Alper DP, Barrero C, et al. Radiographic severity is associated with worse executive function in metopic craniosynostosis. Childs Nerv Syst. 2024; 40(12): 3971–3982. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-024-06493-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-024-06493-7
Gabrick KS, Wu RT, Singh A, et al. Radiographic severity of metopic craniosynostosis correlates with long-term neurocognitive outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020; 145(5): 1241–1248. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006746 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006746
Almeida MN, Alper DP, Long AS, et al. Risk of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disor-der, and executive function impairment in metopic craniosynostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2024; 154(5): 979e–992e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000011249 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000011249
Cabrejo R, Lacadie C, Chuang C, et al. What is the functional difference between sagittal with metopic and isolated sagittal craniosynotosis? J Craniofac Surg. 2019; 30(4): 968–973. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000005288 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000005288
Gaillard L, Tjaberinga MC, Dremmen MHG, et al. Brain volume in infants with metopic synostosis: less white matter volume with an accelerated growth pattern in early life. J Anat. 2024; 245(6): 894–902. https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.14028 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.14028
Safi A-F, Kreppel M, Grandoch A, et al. Clinical evaluation of standardized Fronto-Orbital advancement for correction of isolated trigonocephaly. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(1):72–75. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000004058 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000004058
Di Rocco F, Arnaud E, Marchac D, et al. Anterior fronto-orbital remodeling for trigonocephay. Child’s Nerv Syst. 2012; 28(9): 1369–1373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-012-1841-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-012-1841-6
Tio PAE, Abdel Alim T, Roshchupkin G, et al. Forehead shape analysis following surgical and conservative treatment in metopic synostosis: a 3D photogrammetry analysis. Plastic Reconstr Surg (1963). 2024; 256(1): 103e–111e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000011753 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000011753
Tio P, van Staalduinen M, Okkerse J, et al. Comparing effectiveness of conservative policy to craniofacial surgery in children with metopic synostosis: protocol for an observational cohort study on clinical outcomes, psychosocial well-being and costs in a Dutch academic hospital. BMJ Open. 2025; 15(5): e094112. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-094112 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-094112
Kellogg R, Allori AC, Rogers GF, et al. Interfrontal angle for characterization of trigonocephaly: part 1: devel-opment and validation of a tool for diagnosis of metopic synostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2012; 23(3): 799–804. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e3182518ad2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e3182518ad2
Beiriger JW, Tao W, Bruce MK, et al. CranioRate: an image-based, deep-phenotyping analysis toolset and online clinician interface for metopic craniosynostosis. Plastic Reconstr Surg (1963). 2024; 153(1): 112e–119e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000010452 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000010452
Sisti A, Bassiri Gharb B, Papay F, et al. Anthropometric cranial measurements in metopic craniosynosto-sis/trigonocephaly: diagnostic criteria, classification of severity and indications for surgery. J Craniofac Surg. 2022; 33(1): 161–167. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000008196 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000008196
Cronin BJ, Brandel MG, McKee RM, et al. A comparison of intracranial volume growth in normal children and patients with metopic craniosynostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2020; 31(1): 142–146. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000005946 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000005946
Freudlsperger C, Steinmacher S, Bächli H, et al. Metopic synostosis: measuring intracranial volume change following fronto-orbital advancement using three-dimensional photogrammetry. J Cranio-maxillo-fac Surg. 2015; 43(5): 593–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2015.02.017 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2015.02.017
Bhatti-Söfteland M, Maltese G, Tarnow P, et al. The degree of surgical frontal volume correction in metopic synostosis determines long-term outcomes. J Craniofac Surg. 2017; 28(5): 1161–1163. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000003586 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000003586
Maltese G, Tarnow P, Wikberg E, et al. Intracranial volume before and after surgical treatment for isolated metopic synostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2014; 25(1): 262–266. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000000423 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000000423
Fischer S, Unander-Scharin J, Bhatti-Söfteland M, et al. Springs produce favorable morphologic outcomes relative to H-craniectomy according to a two-center comparison of matched cases. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2024; 154(2): 317e–325e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000010761 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000010761
Graf AR, Klement KA, Denny AD. Quantifying craniometric change early after Fronto-Orbital advancement in metopic synostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2016; 27(7): 1727–1731. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000002977 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000002977
Maltese G, Tarnow P, Tovetjärn R, et al. Correction of hypotelorism in isolated metopic synostosis. J Plastic Surg Hand Surg. 2014; 48(1): 63–66. https://doi.org/10.3109/2000656X.2013.812967 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/2000656X.2013.812967
Tarnow P, Kölby L, Maltese G, et al. Incidence of non-syndromic and syndromic craniosynostosis in Sweden. J Craniofac Surg. 2022; 33(5): 1517–1520. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000008457 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000008457
Ha AY, Skolnick GB, Chi D, et al. School-aged anthropometric outcomes after endoscopic or open repair of metopic synostosis. Pediatrics (Evanston). 2020; 146(3): 1. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-0238 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-0238
Glener AD, Allori AC, Shammas RL, et al. Post-surgical relapse in metopic synostosis and limitations of the interfrontal angle as an outcome measure. J Craniofac Surg. 2017; 28(5): e494–e500. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000003800 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000003800
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Hanna Lif, Rehan Chakari, Per Enblad, Daniel Nowinski
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Acta Chirurgica Scandinavica Society owns the copyright for all material published until Volume 57 (2023) unless otherwise specified. As from 2024 all published articles, unless otherwise specified, are published under CC-BY licences, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, with the condition of proper attribution to the original work.
