Data from the most senior surgeon (C.B.) was used to calculate the difference between groups defined by diagnosis using Pearsons chi-squared correlation. The intraclass correlation coefficient was used to estimate the level of agreement among the 4 raters. Linear regression models were fit to evaluate the association between each of the potentially diagnostic features and ultimate diagnosis of MCS, both individually and in pairwise combination with each of the other features. We report the R2 statistics that measures the proportion of the variation in the dependent variable (clinical diagnosis of MCS or MR) as explained by the independent variable (specific features) in the linear regression model. Intraclass correlation coefficients and 95% confidence intervals were calculated to evaluate the between-rater agreement of presence or absence of specific features. All analyses were carried out using STATA (StataCorp. 2011. Stata Statistical Software: Release 12. College Station, Tex.: StataCorp LP).
The metopic suture was fused in all CTs of children with MR or MCS and 32 (62%) of the controls. Among the MCS cases, the presence of the other CT characteristics ranged from 15% (pulled anterior fontanelle) to 100% (ridge over metopic suture; Table 2). The prevalence of the features among controls ranged from 0% (frontal bone tangent to midline) to 33% (pulled anterior fontanelle). No single characteristic was perfectly correlated with the clinical diagnosis.
The agreement between the ratings of patients’ radiographic diagnosis was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85–0.92). The intraclass correlation coefficients for the individual features ranged from 0.45 to 0.86 for the pulled anterior fontanelle and frontal bone tangent to midline, respectively. We identified moderate-to-strong inter-rater agreements for closed suture, metopic ridge, orbital narrowing, posteriorly displaced frontal bone, frontal bone tangent to mid-orbit, and omega sign, all with agreements greater than 0.6 (Table 3).
The characteristics that accounted for greater than 80% of the difference between the group diagnosed MCS verses controls were the presence of a metopic ridge and posterior displacement of the frontal bone with R squared values of 0.82 and 0.86, respectively (Table 4). Although the R squared values were higher with the addition of each of the other variables in combination, no pairwise combination was 100% predictive of the ultimate diagnosis (Table 4).
The R squared values for the ability for each of the specific features to differentiate between MR and MCS are shown in Table 5. The presence of the metopic ridge accounted for 0.28 of the variation in the diagnosis, and 0.79 in the presence of the variable “posterior displacement of the frontal bone.” “Posterior displacement of the frontal bone” had the highest R squared value individually (0.69). This value was increased slightly when combined with upsloping rim, ridge, pulled fontanelle, orbital narrowing, omega sign, interorbital narrowing, or frontal bone tangent to midline (ranging from 0.70 to 0.75). The ability of the presence or absence of these features to discern between MR and MCS was lower than their ability to discern between metopic synostosis and controls.
The mean IFA for controls, MR, and MCS were 106.0, 101.6, and 98.4, respectively. The mean IFDA for controls, MR, and MCS were 151.9, 141.9, and 126.3, respectively. Comparisons among subgroups are shown in Table 6. In these comparisons, the interfrontal could only significantly discern between MCS and controls, whereas interfrontal divergence angle was statistically significant in distinguishing between MCS and MR, MCS and controls, and MR and controls.
Accurate diagnosis of craniosynostosis is paramount to appropriately identify infants for whom surgical expansion of the calvaria is recommended. Although cranial vault expansion has become safer,18 all surgical interventions carry risks—including the risk associated with exposure to anesthesia in young children.19 Additionally, if surgery is not performed either due to medical comorbidities, family preference, or mild phenotype, a child may still require closer follow-up, additional interventions,20 and may have increased anxiety regarding their risk of elevated intracranial pressure inherent with craniosynostosis.20–27
The diagnosis of craniosynostosis of the major calvarial sutures (metopic, coronal, sagittal, lambdoid) is often based solely upon physical evaluation of the head shape.28 Although a CT scan demonstrating a fused suture can be obtained for diagnostic confirmation for many forms of synostosis, fusion of the metopic suture is an exception, given the frequency of physiologic closure in infants without a craniofacial condition. As expected, we observed a fused metopic suture in a high proportion of our control CT scans (62%). To complicate the diagnosis, as many as 25%29 of children will develop a visible and palpable ridge over the physiologically closing metopic suture, which may resemble the ridge found among patients with true MCS despite a patent suture seen on CT scan.30 Yet, a number of helpful CT scan findings exist, which can help to differentiate between patients with MCS and those with MR.
Frontal bone morphology appears to play the biggest role in the rater’s differentiation between MCS, MR, or normocephaly based on CT scan. This is not surprising since the narrowed forehead is frequently the reason for referral. When asked whether the frontal bones appeared to be posteriorly displaced, the raters found this to be true for only 2 (4.7%) controls and 3 (17.6%) patients with MR, while almost all (97.4%) patients with MCS had posteriorly displaced lateral frontal bones. Even more notable was the presence of straightened lateral frontal bones from which a tangent drawn would intersect the mid orbit or medial (0% control, 0% MR, and 78.9% of MCS). Other research has focused on the narrowness of the forehead as a diagnostic tool and even created a surrogate based on CT scan measurements.11,17,31 Indeed, in our analysis, the use of the IFDA was helpful in discerning between the subgroups of MCS, MR, and controls. But, the narrow forehead is not the only change associated with MCS. Alterations in orbital morphology have previously been described and seem to play an important role in diagnosing MCS in our study.
The raters found the upper orbits to be narrowed in only 1 control (2.1%) and 0 with MR while 27 (69.2%) of the patients with MCS displayed this finding. The distance between the orbits was also found to be decreased in only 1 control (2.1%) and 1 MR (5.6%), whereas 33 (68.8%) patients with MCS had decreased interorbital distances. However, having an upsloping superior orbital rim was less predictive since it was found to be present in 23.3% of controls, 33.3% of patients with MR, and 71.8% of patients with MCS.
We identified a few CT scan findings that were less indicative of MCS than anticipated a priori. A “pulled” anterior fontanelle was a common finding among controls (66.7%), children with MR (75.0%), and patients with MCS (85.0%). Medially displaced supraorbital nerves were much more common in MCS (90.9%), but were also identified in patients with MR (37.5%) and controls (15.8%). The presence of an omega sign was much more common in MCS (69.2%) and was observed in as many as 10% of MR and 3.9% of control CTs. Moreover, this sign was notably absent in 30.8% of patients with MCS.
No single CT scan finding was singularly diagnostic of MCS. In fact, combining CT scan traits, while improving accuracy, still does not bring the predictive value to 100%. It could be that there is no set of characteristics that are universally associated with MCS. Perhaps the metopic suture fuses at different time points of development, thereby variably affecting frontal bones and orbits. Possibly, a lack of agreement among our raters or a disagreement between our raters and the diagnosing clinicians is responsible for this lack of complete consensus. It could also be that a few patients in the cohort were originally diagnosed with MCS by their providing clinician based on physical examination findings, which were not included in our radiographic study.
The agreement between raters ranged from 0.89 to 0.65, with 6 of the evaluated features below the 0.7 threshold considered to be good. This finding speaks to the larger problem of developing an agreement algorithm between surgeons for the diagnosis of MCS. Even if we were able to define a set of criteria to allow for definitive diagnosis of MCS, we must be able to rely on diagnosticians being able to agree on what constitutes any one of these features. Particularly among those features deemed to have utility in predicting the presence or absence of MCS (such as posteriorly displaced frontal bone, frontal bone tangent to midline; pulled fontanelle, ridge, upsloping rim), attention should be given in the course of surgeons training to standardize the identification of these features. The agreement reported in the current study is likely an overestimate of the true level of agreement between surgeons since (1) they come from a single center and several have been trained by the senior author participating in this study and (2) they were trained to refer to and consult the images and primer that was developed for the purposes of standardizing rater’s understanding of what feature, specifically, was being evaluated.
A potential limitation of this study stems from our reliance on clinically indicated CT images. As we relied on retrospective data collection from clinician’s notes—there was no clear standardization in terms of what constituted diagnostic criteria, beyond that which is assumed in one craniofacial center between a group of plastic surgeons who specialize in caring for children with these types of conditions. The subgroup of patients with clinically indicated CTs likely resulted in selection bias, as only the children with more severe alterations in head shape would have undergone radiographic imaging. The impact of this bias on our findings likely resulted in an attenuation of the ability of each feature evaluated in its ability to differentiate between MR and MCS, to a degree. So the power of discernment of each of these features is likely higher than what we have reported here. However, we are not advocating for more frequent imaging; imaging as a tool to aid in diagnosis should be used only as a last resort when a clinical diagnosis is particularly challenging. As such, this subgroup of patients likely does reflect the images that providers are considering when evaluating whether a child’s head meets or exceeds the threshold for a diagnosis of MCS and whether surgery is warranted.
Although many surgeons feel confident in diagnosing metopic craniosynostosis and recommending surgical intervention based on physical examination alone, there remains a gray area of overlap between “mild” metopic craniosynostosis and a narrow forehead with physiological metopic ridging. Some surgeons may dismiss these patients since they do not require surgery, while others may operate. Without guidance, surgeons may choose to perform unnecessary surgical interventions. Moreover, even if the child receives a diagnosis of craniosynostosis but the patient’s skull changes are considered too “mild” to need surgery, then they require additional follow-up and the family may incur undue stress and worry about their child who has been diagnosed with a congenital condition. Therefore, it is paramount to make an accurate diagnosis with all the information available.
In cases of severe trigonocephaly or clear normocephaly with metopic ridging, a CT scan may be unnecessary to confirm the diagnosis. However, when the diagnosis is in question, a CT scan can be beneficial in improving accuracy if findings above and beyond a fused metopic suture are analyzed. The decision to operate is still one that each surgeon must make on his/her own based on the risks of surgery and the perceived ability to improve the patient’s condition surgically. Although there is no single CT scan finding that can make this decision for the surgeon, there are radiographic details that are more likely associated with MCS than MR and normocephaly. Additionally, even if surgery is not recommended, making the diagnosis of craniosynostosis still must be considered seriously as it carries with it the possibility of increased burden of care and familial stress. In difficult cases, we endorse the use of all available information to make an accurate diagnosis.
1. Kolar JC. An epidemiological study of nonsyndromal craniosynostoses. J Craniofac Surg. 22:47–49.
2. Vu HL, Panchal J, Parker EE, et al. The timing of physiologic closure of the metopic suture: a review of 159 patients using reconstructed 3D CT scans of the craniofacial region. J Craniofac Surg. 2001;12:527–532.
3. Weinzweig J, et al. Metopic synostosis: defining the temporal sequence of normal suture fusion and differentiating it from synostosis on the basis of computed tomography images. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;112:1211–1218.
4. Shillito J Jr, Matson DD. Craniosynostosis: a review of 519 surgical patients. Pediatrics. 1968;41:829–853.
5. Anderson FM, Geiger L. Craniosynostosis: a survey of 204 cases. J Neurosurg. 1965;22:229–240. doi:10.3171/jns.1965.22.3.0229.
6. Selber J, et al. The changing epidemiologic spectrum of single-suture synostoses. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122:527–533.
7. Di Rocco F, Arnaud E, Renier D. Evolution in the frequency of nonsyndromic craniosynostosis. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2009;4:21–25.
8. Di Rocco F, Arnaud E, Meyer P, et al. Focus session on the changing “epidemiology” of craniosynostosis (comparing two quinquennia: 1985–1989 and 2003–2007) and its impact on the daily clinical practice: a review from Necker Enfants Malades. Childs Nerv Syst. 2009;25:807–811.
9. van der Meulen J, et al. The increase of metopic synostosis: a pan-European observation. J Craniofac Surg. 2009;20:283–286.
10. Birgfeld CB, et al. Making the diagnosis: metopic ridge versus metopic craniosynostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2013;24:178–185.
11. Kellogg R, Allori AC, Rogers GF, et al. Interfrontal angle for characterization of trigonocephaly: part 1: development and validation of a tool for diagnosis of metopic synostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2012;23:799–804.
12. Kolar JC, Salter EM. Preoperative anthropometric dysmorphology in metopic synostosis. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1997;103:341–351.
13. Havlik RJ, Azurin DJ, Bartlett SP, et al. Analysis and treatment of severe trigonocephaly. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;103:381–390.
14. Ruiz-Correa S, et al. New severity indices for quantifying single-suture metopic craniosynostosis. Neurosurgery. 2008;63:318–324; discussion 324315.
15. Fearon JA, Ruotolo RA, Kolar JC. Single sutural craniosynostoses: surgical outcomes and long-term growth. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123:635–642.
16. Friede H, Alberius P, Lilja J, et al. Trigonocephaly: clinical and cephalometric assessment of craniofacial morphology in operated and nontreated patients. Cleft Palate J. 1990;27:362–367; discussion 368.
17. Wood BC, et al. What’s in a Name? Accurately diagnosing metopic craniosynostosis using a computational approach. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137:205–213.
18. Birgfeld CB, et al. Safety of open cranial vault surgery for single-suture craniosynostosis: a case for the multidisciplinary team. J Craniofac Surg. 2015;26:2052–2058.
19. Barritt J, Brooksbank M, Simpson D. Scaphocephaly: aesthetic and psychosocial considerations. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1981;23:183–191.
20. Wall SA, Thomas GP, Johnson D, et al. The preoperative incidence of raised intracranial pressure in nonsyndromic sagittal craniosynostosis is underestimated in the literature. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2014;14:674–681.
21. Arnaud E, Renier D, Marchac D. Prognosis for mental function in scaphocephaly. J Neurosurg. 1995;83:476–479.
22. Eley KA, Johnson D, Wilkie AO, et al. Raised intracranial pressure is frequent in untreated nonsyndromic unicoronal synostosis and does not correlate with severity of phenotypic features. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130:690e–697e.
23. Gault DT, Renier D, Marchac D, et al. Intracranial pressure and intracranial volume in children with craniosynostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1992;90:377–381.
24. Renier D, Lajeunie E, Arnaud E, et al. Management of craniosynostoses. Childs Nerv Syst. 2000;16:645–658.
25. Renier D, Sainte-Rose C, Marchac D, et al. Intracranial pressure in craniostenosis. J Neurosurg. 1982;57:370–377.
26. Thompson DN, Harkness W, Jones B, et al. Subdural intracranial pressure monitoring in craniosynostosis: its role in surgical management. Childs Nerv Syst. 1995;11:269–275.
27. Thompson DN, Malcolm GP, Jones BM, et al. Intracranial pressure in single-suture craniosynostosis. Pediatr Neurosurg. 1995;22:235–240.
28. Fearon JA, Singh DJ, Beals SP, et al. The diagnosis and treatment of single-sutural synostoses: are computed tomographic scans necessary? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120:1327–1331.
29. Cohen MJ, MacLean RE. Craniosynostosis: Diagnosis, Evaluation and Management. 2000.2nd ed. Oxford University Press.
30. Hashim PW, Patel A, Chang CC, et al. Does an elevated bony ridge along the course of the metopic suture equal metopic synostosis? Implications for management. J Craniofac Surg. 2014;25:55–58.
Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons.
31. Nguyen DC, et al. Are endoscopic and open treatments of metopic synostosis equivalent in treating trigonocephaly and hypotelorism? J Craniofac Surg. 2015;26:129–134.