CASE REPORT Pan-Suture Synostosis After Posterior Vault Distraction

Publisher:Open Science Company, LLCKatrina F. Chu, BA, Stephen R. Sullivan, MD, MPH, and Helena O. Taylor, MD, PhD

CASE REPORT Pan-Suture Synostosis After Posterior Vault Distraction

Publisher:Open Science Company, LLC
Katrina F. Chu, BA, Stephen R. Sullivan, MD, MPH, and Helena O. Taylor, MD, PhD

Keywords

delayed craniosynostosis

distraction osteogenesis

secondary craniosynostosis

posterior vault distraction

Saethre-Chotzen syndrome

June 2013

CASE REPORT
Pan-Suture Synostosis After Posterior Vault Distraction
Katrina F. Chu, BA,^a Stephen R. Sullivan, MD, MPH,^a,b and Helena O. Taylor, MD, PhD^a,b
^aWarren Alpert Medical School of Brown University; and ^bDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Rhode Island Hospital and Hasbro Children's Hospital, Providence, RI
Correspondence: Helena_Taylor@Brown.edu
Keywords: delayed craniosynostosis, distraction osteogenesis, secondary craniosynostosis, posterior vault distraction, Saethre-Chotzen syndrome

Objective: Posterior vault remodeling by distraction osteogenesis is a relatively new technique used for initial correction of turribrachycephaly in children with bicoronal craniosynostosis. We present a new potential complication from this procedure; a case of pan-suture synostosis subsequent to posterior vault distraction. Methods: We report an infant girl who presented with bicoronal synostosis in the setting of Saethre-Chotzen syndrome. She underwent posterior vault distraction and was distracted a total of 34 millimeters, with successful osteogenesis at the site. Results: One year postoperatively, the patient was found to have incidental, asymptomatic pan-suture synostosis on computed tomography. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of delayed craniosynostosis after posterior vault distraction in the literature. The possible pathogenesis and significance of this case are discussed with a review of the current literature.

Surgical correction is advocated for both idiopathic and syndromic craniosynostosis to expand the cranial vault, relieve elevated intracranial pressure, prevent constriction of the synostotic skull on the developing brain, and correct cranial morphology. Posterior vault remodeling via distraction osteogenesis is increasingly used for the initial correction of turribrachycephaly¹^-⁴ in children with bicoronal synostosis, in which calvarial growth is limited in the anterior-posterior plane, and compensation occurs in the cranial-caudal direction. The relative benefit of posterior vault distraction over conventional cranial remodeling is controversial.¹^,⁴

Described complications of vault distraction include infection, hematoma, dural or cerebral spinal fluid leaks, and hardware complications.⁵ We present a new potential complication from this procedure; a case of pan-suture synostosis subsequent to posterior vault distraction. The possible pathogenesis and significance of this case are discussed with a review of the current literature.

CASE REPORT

Our patient presented at 3 months of age with bilateral coronal synostosis and profound turribrachycephaly (Fig 1). Gene testing was positive for TWIST1 mutation, consistent with Saethre-Chotzen syndrome. She underwent bilateral posterior occipital craniotomy and posterior vault distraction at 6 months of age to lower the cranial high point and expand the anterior-posterior cranial length. Internal distractors with 4-cm distraction arms were placed along the osteotomy sites of the parietal bones; the intended vector was posterior-inferior from the skull apex (Fig 2). She tolerated the procedure well with a benign postoperative course. The patient's family was instructed to turn the distraction arms 1 mm per day at home. She was distracted 34 mm over 4 weeks, with correction of her occipital head shape and successful osteogenesis at the distraction site (Fig 3).

Figure 1. Three-month-old female patient with Saethre-Chotzen syndrome and bicoronal synostosis resulting in significant turribrachycephaly (a). The sagittal, lambdoid, and squamosal sutures were patent with a large fontanelle, characteristic of Saethre-Chotzen syndrome. Initial computed tomographic volume rendering shows bicoronal craniosynostosis (b).

Figure 2. Bilateral craniectomy was performed and distraction plates connected to external arms were implanted along the osteotomy. At home, the family turned the arms 1 mm per day totaling 34 mm over 1 month.

Figure 3. Clinical (a) and radiographic appearance (b) after 3 months of bony consolidation. Distraction hardware was subsequently removed.

One year postoperatively, a computed tomographic scan revealed fusion of all her cranial sutures—a delayed pan-suture synostosis (Fig 4). Clinically, she had no evidence of increased intracranial pressure. Subsequent fronto-orbital advancement at 22 months improved forehead contour and brow position, and provided further increase in intracranial volume. To date, her postoperative course has been uneventful, without papilledema, headaches, or developmental delays.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of delayed pan-suture craniosynostosis after posterior vault distraction. Whether the pan-suture synostosis was caused by the distraction procedure, or whether it was part of the underlying bony pathology of her syndromic craniosynostosis remains unclear. Secondary synostosis has been reported following strip craniectomies for synostosis⁶ as well as seemingly unrelated procedures such as hemispherectomy.⁷ Interactions between the dura mater and overlying sutures have been shown to affect cranial development,⁸^,⁹ and one postulated mechanism in the literature is that interruption of these inhibitory signals on sutures may permit early fusion.⁶^,¹⁰^,¹¹ This mechanism seems less likely in our patient's case, as the dura is not stripped from the native sutures in a distraction procedure.

Figure 4. Clinical (a) and radiographic appearance (b-d) 1 year after posterior vault distraction reveals pan-suture synostosis. Routine computed tomography demonstrated interval closure of the sagittal and lambdoid sutures.

Alternatively, mechanical forces may induce an epigenetic change that induces early suture fusion.¹² Compressive forces in utero, secondary to twin gestation,¹³ or low pelvic station¹⁴^,¹⁵ have been implicated in craniosynostosis. Animal models have capitulated the theory that compressive forces may induce premature fusion.¹²^,¹⁶ In addition, it has recently been noted that helmet molding in infants after strip craniectomy for sagittal synostosis may induce secondary synostosis.¹⁷

It is also conceivable that our patient may have presented to us early in an eventual pan-suture process. This “progressive postnatal craniosynostosis”¹⁸^-²⁰ has been described in cases of Crouzon, Apert, and Saethre-Chotzen syndromes. However, given the timing of her synostosis shortly after her distraction procedure, we advocate careful monitoring and reporting of delayed synostosis after posterior vault distraction to better understand this phenomenon and prevent possible sequelae from undetected secondary synostosis.

REFERENCES

1. Steinbacher DM, Skirpan J, Puchala J, Bartlett SP. Expansion of the posterior cranial vault using distraction osteogenesis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127(2):792-801.

2. White N, Evans M, Dover MS, Noons P, Solanki G, Nishikawa H. Posterior calvarial vault expansion using distraction osteogenesis. Childs Nerv Syst. 2009;25:231-6.

3. Wiberg A, Magdum S, Richards PG, Jayamohan J, Wall SA, Johnson D. Posterior calvarial distraction in craniosynostosis—an evolving technique. J Craniofac Surg. 2012;40:799-806.

4. Taylor JA, Derderian CA, Bartlett SP, Fiadjoe JE, Sussman EM, Stricker PA. Perioperative morbidity in posterior cranial vault expansion: distraction osteogenesis versus conventional osteotomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:674e-80e.

5. Esparza J, Hinojosa J, García-Recuero I, Romance A, Pascual B, Martínez de Aragón A. Surgical treatment of isolated and syndromic craniosynostosis. Results and complications in 283 consecutive cases. Neurocirugia (Astur). 2008;19:509-29.

6. Arnaud E, Capon-Degardin N, Michienzi J, Di Rocco F, Renier D. Scaphocephaly: part II: secondary coronal synostosis after scaphocephalic surgical correction. J Craniofac Surg. 2009;20(suppl 2):1843-50.

7. Jazayeri MA, Jensen JN, Lew SM. Craniosynostosis following hemispherectomy in a 2.5 month old boy with intractable epilepsy. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2011;8:450-4.

8. Bradley JP, Levine JP, McCarthy JG, Longaker MT. Studies in cranial suture biology: regional dura mater determines in vitro cranial suture fusion. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;100:1091-2.

9. Gagan JR, Tholpady SS, Ogle RC. Cellular dynamics and tissue interactions of the dura mater during head development. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today. 2007;81:297-304.

10. Opperman LA, Passarelli RW, Morgan EP, Reintjes M, Ogle RC. Cranial sutures require tissue interactions with dura mater to resist osseous obliteration in vitro. J Bone Miner Res. 1995;10:1978-87.

11. Opperman LA, Sweeney TM, Redmon J, Persing JA, Ogle RC. Tissue interactions with underlying dura mater inhibit osseous obliteration of developing cranial sutures. Dev Dyn. 1993;198:312-22.

12. Oppenheimer AJ, Rhee ST, Goldstein SA, Buchman SR. Force-induced craniosynostosis in the murine sagittal suture. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:1840-8.

13. Van Aalst JA, Schultz G, Eppley BL. Craniosynostosis anomalies in twins. J Craniofacial Surg. 2005;16:696-9.

14. Higginbottom MC, Jones KL, James HE. Intrauterine constraint and craniosynostosis. Neurosurgery. 1980;6:39-44.

15. Graham JM, Jr, Badura RJ, Smith DW. Coronal craniostenosis: fetal head constraint as one possible cause. Pediatrics. 1980;65:995-9.

16. Smartt JM, Jr, Karmacharya J, Gannon FH, et al. Intrauterine fetal constraint induces chondrocyte apoptosis and premature ossification of the cranial base. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;116:1363-9.

17. Ridgeway E, Candelario J, Rogers GF, Proctor MR. The management of sagittal synostosis with endoscopic craniectomy and post-operative helmet molding therapy. Abstract presented at: the Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Society of Plastic Surgeons; September 2012; Boston, MA.

18. Connolly JP, Gruss J, Seto ML, et al. Progressive postnatal craniosynostosis and increased intracranial pressure. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113:1313-23.

19. Hoffman HJ, Reddy KV. Progressive cranial suture stenosis in craniosynostosis. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 1991;2:555-64.

20. Reddy K, Hoffman H, Armstrong D. Delayed and progressive multiple suture craniosynostosis. Neurosurgery. 1990;26:442-8.


JOURNAL INFORMATION	ARTICLE INFORMATION
Journal ID: ePlasty	Volume: 13
ISSN: 1937-5719	E-location ID: e52
Publisher: Open Science Company, LLC	Published: October 3, 2013