Morphometric analysis of the structures of the skull according to computed tomography data in children in norm and in dolichocephaly
https://doi.org/10.18699/SSMJ20230406
Abstract
There is an increased interest in the problem of helping children with skull deformities that occur due to premature closure of cranial sutures and the development of craniosynostosis. Assessment of cranial dysmorphism in skull deformities is often subjective and remains a challenge. Morphometric studies are a significant section that is poorly covered in modern scientific, practical and reference medical literature.
Material and methods. The analysis of the data of craniometric measurements, of cephalic index (CI) according to the results of computed tomography in 24 children with dolichocephaly (14 boys, 10 girls) at the age of 7.4 ± 3.2 months (2–12 months) and in the control group of 25 children (15 boys, 9 girls) at the age of 7.2 ± 4.8 months (2–12 months).
Results. The data showed significant differences in children in norm and in dolichocephaly. CI shows the ratio of the linear dimensions of the skull in normal and dolichocephaly. The most significant differences were revealed when assessing the distances G-Op, CG-TS, CG-MAI, MAI-MAI, Zg-Zg, Ec-Ec, Br-Ba. CG-TS, CG-MAI, MAI-MAI, Br-Ba reflect deformation of the skull base, and Zg-Zg, Ec-Ec – deformation of the facial skeleton in dolichocephaly.
Conclusions. A comprehensive morphometric analysis of the skull structures based on precise anatomical landmarks demonstrated objective differences in the morphology of the skull in children with normal conditions and with dolichocephaly. The data indicate the importance of a comprehensive assessment of changes in the skull for all forms of the skull. Carrying out such an analysis is important for understanding all morphological changes in the skull in health and disease.
About the Authors
S. S. Gaibov
Tyumen State Medical University of Minzdrav of Russia; Regional Clinical Hospital N 2
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Saidi S. Gaibov, candidate of medical sciences
625023, Tyumen, Odesskaya st., 54
625039, Tyumen, Melnikaite st., 75
E. V. Zakharchyk
Tyumen State Medical University of Minzdrav of Russia; Regional Clinical Hospital N 2
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Ekaterina V. Zacharchyk, candidate of medical sciences
625023, Tyumen, Odesskaya st., 54
625039, Tyumen, Melnikaite st., 75
D. P. Vorobjov
Tyumen State Medical University of Minzdrav of Russia; Regional Clinical Hospital N 2
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Dmitry P. Vorobyev, candidate of medical sciences
625023, Tyumen, Odesskaya st., 54
625039, Tyumen, Melnikaite st., 75
References
1. Thiele-Nygaard A.E., Foss-Skiftesvik J., Juhler M. Intracranial pressure, brain morphology and cognitive outcome in children with sagittal craniosynostosis. Childs Nerv. Syst. 2020;36(4):689–695. doi: 10.1007/s00381-020-04502-z
2. Lloyd M.S., Buchanan E.P., Khechoyan D.Y. Review of quantitative outcome analysis of cranial morphology in craniosynostosis. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2016;69(11):1464–1468. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2016.08.006
3. Malde O., Cross C., Lim C.L., Marghoub A., Cunningham M.L., Hopper R.A., Moazen M. Predicting calvarial morphology in sagittal craniosynostosis. Sci. Rep. 2020;10(1):3. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-55224-5
4. Yagain V.K., Pai S.R., Kalthur S.G., Chethan P., Hemalatha I. Study of cephalic index in Indian students. Int. J. Morphol. 2012;30(1):125–129.
5. Beckett J.S., Pfaff M.J., Diluna M., Steinbacher D.M. Dolichocephaly without sagittal craniosynostosis. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2013;24(5):1713–1715. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e3182a12ece
6. Mewes A.J., Zöllei L., Hüppi P.S., Als H., McAnulty G.B., Inder T.E., Wells W.M., Warfield S.K. Displacement of brain regions in preterm infants with non-synostotic dolichocephaly investigated by MRI. Neuroimage. 2007;36(4):1074–1085. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.04.011
7. Kochuvareed M.T., Tomy M.G., Chandramohan N., Velayutham M., Sheth J., Sheth F., Janaki V. Prenatal dolichocephaly: sign of trouble? A variant of Miller–Dieker syndrome. Fetal Pediatr. Pathol. 2013;32(4):308–311. doi: 10.3109/15513815.2012.754529
8. Marcus J.R., Domeshek L.F., Loyd A.M., Schoenleber J.M., Das R.R., Nightingale R.W., Mukundan S. Use of a three-dimensional, normative database of pediatric craniofacial morphology for modern anthropometric analysis. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2009;124(6):2076–2084. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181bf7e1b
9. Delye H., Clijmans T., Mommaerts M.Y., Sloten J.V., Goffin J. Creating a normative database of age-specific 3D geometrical data, bone density, and bone thickness of the developing skull: a pilot study. J. Neurosurg. Pediatr. 2015;16(6):687–702. doi: 10.3171/2015.4.PEDS1493
10. Elzaki M.M., Ayad C.E., Hassan H.A., Abdalla E.A. Anthropometric computed tomography study of certain craniofacial parameters: cephalic length and cranial width, nasal height, width and index of adult Sudanese. Glob. Adv. Res. J. Med. Med. Sci. 2015;4:467–472.
11. Massimi L., Bianchi F., Frassanito P., Calandrelli R., Tamburrini G., Caldarelli M. Imaging in craniosynostosis: when and what? Childs. Nerv. Syst. 2019;35(11):2055–2069. doi: 10.1007/s00381-019-04278-x
12. Hong B.Y., Ho E.S., Zellner E., Phillips J.H., Forrest C.R. Comparing cephalic index and midsagittal vector analysis in assessing morphology in sagittal synostosis: A CT-based morphometric analysis. Cleft. Palate. Craniofac. J. 2019;56(7):944–952. doi: 10.1177/1055665618815400
Review
Views:
321
Email this article 