Management of sagittal synostosis in the Synostosis Research Group: baseline data and early outcomes

Cordell M. Baker, Vijay M. Ravindra, Barbu Gociman, Faizi A. Siddiqi, Jesse A. Goldstein, Matthew D. Smyth, Amy Lee, Richard C.E. Anderson, Kamlesh B. Patel, Craig Birgfeld, Ian F. Pollack, Thomas Imahiyerobo, John R.W. Kestle

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

6 Scopus citations


Objective Sagittal synostosis is the most common form of isolated craniosynostosis. Although some centers have reported extensive experience with this condition, most reports have focused on a single center. In 2017, the Synostosis Research Group (SynRG), a multicenter collaborative network, was formed to study craniosynostosis. Here, the authors report their early experience with treating sagittal synostosis in the network. The goals were to describe practice patterns, identify variations, and generate hypotheses for future research. Methods All patients with a clinical diagnosis of isolated sagittal synostosis who presented to a SynRG center between March 1, 2017, and October 31, 2019, were included. Follow-up information through October 31, 2020, was included. Data extracted from the prospectively maintained SynRG registry included baseline parameters, surgical adjuncts and techniques, complications prior to discharge, and indications for reoperation. Data analysis was descriptive, using frequencies for categorical variables and means and medians for continuous variables. Results Two hundred five patients had treatment for sagittal synostosis at 5 different sites. One hundred twenty-six patients were treated with strip craniectomy and 79 patients with total cranial vault remodeling. The most common strip craniectomy was wide craniectomy with parietal wedge osteotomies (44%), and the most common cranial vault remodeling procedure was total vault remodeling without forehead remodeling (63%). Preoperative mean cephalic indices (CIs) were similar between treatment groups: 0.69 for strip craniectomy and 0.68 for cranial vault remodeling. Thirteen percent of patients had other health problems. In the cranial vault cohort, 81% of patients who received tranexamic acid required a transfusion compared with 94% of patients who did not receive tranexamic acid. The rates of complication were low in all treatment groups. Five patients (2%) had an unintended reoperation. The mean change in CI was 0.09 for strip craniectomy and 0.06 for cranial vault remodeling; wide craniectomy resulted in a greater change in CI in the strip craniectomy group. Conclusions The baseline severity of scaphocephaly was similar across procedures and sites. Treatment methods varied, but cranial vault remodeling and strip craniectomy both resulted in satisfactory postoperative CIs. Use of tranexamic acid may reduce the need for transfusion in cranial vault cases. The wide craniectomy technique for strip craniectomy seemed to be associated with change in CI. Both findings seem amenable to testing in a randomized controlled trial.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-6
Number of pages6
JournalNeurosurgical focus
Issue number4
StatePublished - Apr 2021


  • Synostosis Research Group
  • cranial vault reconstruction
  • craniosynostosis
  • sagittal synostosis
  • strip craniectomy


Dive into the research topics of 'Management of sagittal synostosis in the Synostosis Research Group: baseline data and early outcomes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this