DOCSLIB.ORG

The Evolution of Surgical Management for Craniosynostosis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Evolution of Surgical Management for Craniosynostosis Neurosurg Focus 29 (6):E5, 2010 The evolution of surgical management for craniosynostosis VIVEK A. MEHTA, B.S., CHETAN BETTEGOWDA, M.D., PH.D., GEORGE I. JALLO, M.D., AND EDWARD S. AHN, M.D. Division of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Department of Neurosurgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland Craniosynostosis, the premature closure of cranial sutures, has been known to exist for centuries, but modern surgical management has only emerged and evolved over the past 100 years. The success of surgery for this condition has been based on the recognition of scientific principles that dictate brain and cranial growth in early infancy and childhood. The evolution of strip craniectomies and suturectomies to extensive calvarial remodeling and endoscopic suturectomies has been driven by a growing understanding of how a prematurely fused cranial suture can affect the growth and shape of the entire skull. In this review, the authors discuss the early descriptions of craniosynostosis, describe the scientific principles upon which surgical intervention was based, and briefly summarize the eras of surgi- cal management and their evolution to present day. (DOI: 10.3171/2010.9.FOCUS10204) KEY WORDS • craniosynostosis • surgical management • suture Early Descriptions of Cranial Deformity Early Scientific Exploration The aberrant congenital deformities of the skull have In his first scientific descriptions of craniosynosto- been known to exist for centuries and were well-recog- sis, von Sömmering sought to not only describe the pri- nized and described as early as the time of antiquity. In mary defect and the cosmetic consequences, but also to the Iliad, Homer describes the warrior Thersites as “the elucidate the secondary global cranial impact. He aimed ugliest man who came before Troy…his head ran up to to develop a unifying mechanistic theory describing the a point..,” a description characteristic of oxycephaly.20 pathogenesis with a clear intent on developing a treat- The recognition of cranial vault deformities by the an- ment. Soon after von Sömmering, Otto43—based on his cient physician Galen, and some early understanding of observations in humans and animals—proposed that a the role of cranial sutures by Hippocrates, have also been consequence of premature suture fusion was a compen- reported.6,55 By the 16th century, it appears that anato- satory cranial expansion along another trajectory in the mists appreciated the existence of cranial sutures and skull, providing the first explanation for the global crani- had documented a broad range of the characteristics of al abnormalities observed. In 1851, Virchow59 published the deformity, from an appreciation of suture pattern a landmark paper in the history of craniosynostosis in and premature suture fusion in a variety of configura- which he described the fundamental aberrant growth pat- tions by Hundt,21 specific abnormal varieties of sagittal terns in this condition, which he termed Virchow’s law. and coronal sutures by Dryander,13 and what would now Virchow’s law stated that the observed deformities oc- be described as oxycephaly and brachycephaly by della curred as a result of “cessation of growth across a prema- Croce10 and Vesalius58 (Fig. 1). However, von Sömmer- turely fused suture,” with “compensatory growth” along ing61 in the late 1790s was the first to go beyond simple nonfused sutures in a direction parallel to the affected descriptions and apply scientific principles to the study of suture, causing obstruction of normal brain growth.3 This abnormal cranial suture growth. He recognized the im- was the first accurate and generalizable principle appli- portance of sutures in active skull growth and the conse- cable to all patterns of premature suture fusion. quences of premature fusion, thus laying the foundation Virchow59 initially described this disorder in 1851 as for our modern understanding of craniosynostosis and craniostenosis, meaning a structured or narrowed skull, the subsequent surgical and nonsurgical interventions.62,63 but was convinced by Sear47 to instead call this entity Neurosurg Focus / Volume 29 / December 2010 1 Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/02/21 11:15 PM UTC V. A. Mehta et al. FIG. 1. Illustrations of abnormal skull shapes by Vesalius in 1543 in De Humani Corporis Fabrica. Abnormalities were described in terms of promi- nences, not sutures. A: Loss of posterior eminence. B: Loss of anterior and posterior eminence. C: Loss of eminence at sides. Image credit: William H. Welch Medical Library, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. craniosynostosis, which more accurately indicated suture the consequences of premature fusion was growing, but involvement and encompassed all varieties of suture dis- surgical intervention was not attempted until it was reli- ease. Virchow’s impact was significant, as the first sur- ably recognized that craniosynostosis could lead to im- gical interventions and subsequent iterations were based paired neurological and cognitive growth, blindness, and directly on his observations and principles. By the early hydrocephalus.18 The first reported surgical interventions 1900s, craniosynostosis was recognized as one compo- for craniosynostosis were strip craniectomies, first by nent of complex syndromic deformities, most notably by Lannelongue in Paris in 189033 followed shortly by Lane Apert4 in 1906 and Crouzon7 in 1912, whose names bare in San Francisco in 1892.31 Lannelongue performed bilat- two of the most well-known syndromic deformities, of eral strip craniectomies for sagittal synostosis and strong- which there are now more than 60. ly advocated for release, not resection, of the fused suture. Nearly a century later, Moss became very interested Lane reports being approached by the mother of a child in craniosynostosis but categorically rejected Virchow’s who pleaded to him: “Can you not unlock my poor child’s law. Instead, in an attempt to unify all types of craniosyn- brain and let it grow?” Lane performed a strip craniecto- ostosis, he proposed that the cranial base, not the suture, my with removal of a stenosed sagittal suture along with was the primary site of abnormality, with suture fusion lateral strip of parietal bone bilaterally (Fig. 2). Howev- being a secondary consequence.12,40,41 He based this theo- er, the patient died 14 hours postoperatively, reportedly ry on 4 observations: 1) sutures were often patent at sur- from complications of anesthesia. Despite these isolated gery, even when there was a high degree of preoperative reports with limited outcome data, it appears that this suspicion of suture fusion; 2) there were characteristic technique was quickly adopted and used for the treatment abnormalities at the cranial base that occurred with cer- of craniosynostosis. An atlas with figures demonstrating tain suture fusion patterns; 3) excision of the fused suture a variety of craniectomies for craniosynostosis was pub- did not always improve the cranial shape; and 4) embryo- lished just 5 years after Lannelongue’s first report,11 along logically, skull development occurred after cranial base development. Moss’ theory fell out of favor as surgical treatment in humans directed at the prematurely fused sutures demon- strated reversal of the deformity. Unfortunately, some sur- geons attempted complex cranial base expansion based on these theories. Moss’s theory was later definitively disprov- en when it was shown that the suture itself was the primary site of abnormality in craniosynostosis, that cranial base and facial abnormalities responded to opportunities for su- turing,44,46 and that abnormalities in the cranial base could resolve completely with suture release.36 However, a last- ing contribution of Moss’ work was his recognition that the active growth of the underlying brain dictated the passive cranial growth along the suture lines. He termed this the “functional matrix theory” and it would later form part of the justification for the minimally invasive approach early in life. Early Attempts at Surgical Intervention FIG. 2. Lane’s early report of surgical repair for presumed craniosyn- ostosis published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. By the late 1800s, the understanding of sutures and Reproduced with permission from Lane LC: JAMA XVIII:49–50, 1892. 2 Neurosurg Focus / Volume 29 / December 2010 Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/02/21 11:15 PM UTC The evolution of surgical management for craniosynostosis with many surgical texts illustrating techniques for treat- late linear craniectomies in these patients8 and presented ment of fused sutures.32,34 surgeons of the next era with major challenges to solve. However, the outcomes of these early interventions were limited by 2 major challenges. First, it later became clear that many of the children operated on at this time Advances at Children’s Hospital Boston were more likely to have microcephaly, rather than cra- niosynostosis, a distinction that was either not diagnosed Once an effective approach for early craniosynosto- or considered at that time. Second, in patients with true sis was in widespread use, much of the research focus, craniosynostosis, these procedures were performed late which was primarily taking place at Children’s Hospital in the course of the disease after neurological deficits Boston, shifted to addressing the limitations of surgical developed. Their outcomes were therefore accompanied intervention for children who presented late in the disease by significant reossification, and only served to tempo- course or
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Basic Concepts in Basic Concepts in Dysmorphology
    Basic Concepts in Dysmorphology Samia Temtamy* & Mona Aglan** *Professor of Human Genetics **Professor of Clinical Genetics Human Genetics & Genome Research Division National Research Centre, Cairo, Egypt OtliOutline y Definition of dysmorphology y Definition of terms routinely used in the description of birth defects y Impact of malformations y The difference between major & minor anomalies y Approach to a dysmorphic individual: y Suspicion & analysis y Systematic physical examination y CfitifdiConfirmation of diagnos is y Intervention y Summary 2 DfiitiDefinition of fd dysmorph hlology y The term “dysmorphology” was first coined by Dr. DidSithUSAiDavid Smith, USA in 1960s. y It implies study of human congenital defects and abnormalities of body structure that originate before birth. y The term “dysmorphic” is used to describe individuals whose physical fffeatures are not usually found in other individuals with the same age or ethnic background. y “Dys” (Greek)=disordered or abnormal and “Morph”=shape 3 Definition of terms routinely used in the d escri pti on of bi rth d ef ect s y A malformation / anomaly: is a primary defect where there i s a bas ic a ltera tion o f s truc ture, usuall y occurring before 10 weeks of gestation. y Examples: cleft palate, anencephaly, agenesis of limb or part of a limb. 4 Cleft lip & palate Absence of digits (ectrodactyly) y Malformation Sequence: A pattern of multiple defects resulting from a single primary malformation. y For example: talipes and hydrocephalus can result from a lumbar neural tube defect. Lumbar myelomeningeocele 5 y Malformation Syndrome: A pattern of features, often with an underlying cause, that arises from several different errors in morphogenesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Imaging in Craniosynostosis: When and What?
    Child's Nervous System (2019) 35:2055–2069 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-019-04278-x REVIEW ARTICLE Imaging in craniosynostosis: when and what? L. Massimi1,2 & F. Bianchi1 & P. Frassanito1 & R. Calandrelli3 & G. Tamburrini1,2 & M. Caldarelli1,2 Received: 17 May 2019 /Accepted: 25 June 2019 /Published online: 9 September 2019 # Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019 Abstract Purpose Currently, the interest on craniosynostosis in the clinical practice is raised by their increased frequency and their genetic implications other than by the still existing search of less invasive surgical techniques. These reasons, together with the problem of legal issues, make the need of a definite diagnosis for a crucial problem, even in single-suture craniosynostosis (SSC). Although the diagnosis of craniosynostosis is primarily the result of physical examination, craniometrics measuring, and obser- vation of the skull deformity, the radiological assessment currently plays an important role in the confirmation of the diagnosis, the surgical planning, and even the postoperative follow-up. On the other hand, in infants, the use of radiation or the need of sedation/anesthesia raises the problem to reduce them to minimum to preserve such a delicate category of patient from their adverse effects. Methods, results and conclusions This review aims at summarizing the state of the art of the role of radiology in craniosynostosis, mainly focusing on indications and techniques, to provide an update not only to pediatric neurosurgeons or maxillofacial surgeons but also to all the other specialists involved in their management, like neonatologists, pediatricians, clinical geneticists, and pediatric neurologists. Keywords Craniosynostosis .
    [Show full text]
  • Mutations Within Or Upstream of the Basic Helixð Loopð Helix Domain of the TWIST Gene Are Specific to Saethre-Chotzen Syndrome
    European Journal of Human Genetics (1999) 7, 27–33 © 1999 Stockton Press All rights reserved 1018–4813/99 $12.00 t http://www.stockton-press.co.uk/ejhg ARTICLES Mutations within or upstream of the basic helix–loop–helix domain of the TWIST gene are specific to Saethre-Chotzen syndrome Vincent El Ghouzzi, Elisabeth Lajeunie, Martine Le Merrer, Val´erie Cormier-Daire, Dominique Renier, Arnold Munnich and Jacky Bonaventure Unit´e de Recherches sur les Handicaps G´en´etiques de l’Enfant, Institut Necker, Paris, France Saethre-Chotzen syndrome (ACS III) is an autosomal dominant craniosynostosis syndrome recently ascribed to mutations in the TWIST gene, a basic helix–loop–helix (b-HLH) transcription factor regulating head mesenchyme cell development during cranial neural tube formation in mouse. Studying a series of 22 unrelated ACS III patients, we have found TWIST mutations in 16/22 cases. Interestingly, these mutations consistently involved the b-HLH domain of the protein. Indeed, mutant genotypes included frameshift deletions/insertions, nonsense and missense mutations, either truncating or disrupting the b-HLH motif of the protein. This observation gives additional support to the view that most ACS III cases result from loss-of-function mutations at the TWIST locus. The P250R recurrent FGFR 3 mutation was found in 2/22 cases presenting mild clinical manifestations of the disease but 4/22 cases failed to harbour TWIST or FGFR 3 mutations. Clinical re-examination of patients carrying TWIST mutations failed to reveal correlations between the mutant genotype and severity of the phenotype. Finally, since no TWIST mutations were detected in 40 cases of isolated coronal craniosynostosis, the present study suggests that TWIST mutations are specific to Saethre- Chotzen syndrome.
    [Show full text]
  • Prenatal Ultrasonography of Craniofacial Abnormalities
    Prenatal ultrasonography of craniofacial abnormalities Annisa Shui Lam Mak, Kwok Yin Leung Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China REVIEW ARTICLE https://doi.org/10.14366/usg.18031 pISSN: 2288-5919 • eISSN: 2288-5943 Ultrasonography 2019;38:13-24 Craniofacial abnormalities are common. It is important to examine the fetal face and skull during prenatal ultrasound examinations because abnormalities of these structures may indicate the presence of other, more subtle anomalies, syndromes, chromosomal abnormalities, or even rarer conditions, such as infections or metabolic disorders. The prenatal diagnosis of craniofacial abnormalities remains difficult, especially in the first trimester. A systematic approach to the fetal Received: May 29, 2018 skull and face can increase the detection rate. When an abnormality is found, it is important Revised: June 30, 2018 to perform a detailed scan to determine its severity and search for additional abnormalities. Accepted: July 3, 2018 Correspondence to: The use of 3-/4-dimensional ultrasound may be useful in the assessment of cleft palate and Kwok Yin Leung, MBBS, MD, FRCOG, craniosynostosis. Fetal magnetic resonance imaging can facilitate the evaluation of the palate, Cert HKCOG (MFM), Department of micrognathia, cranial sutures, brain, and other fetal structures. Invasive prenatal diagnostic Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gascoigne Road, techniques are indicated to exclude chromosomal abnormalities. Molecular analysis for some Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China syndromes is feasible if the family history is suggestive. Tel. +852-3506 6398 Fax. +852-2384 5834 E-mail: [email protected] Keywords: Craniofacial; Prenatal; Ultrasound; Three-dimensional ultrasonography; Fetal structural abnormalities This is an Open Access article distributed under the Introduction terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non- Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non- Craniofacial abnormalities are common.
    [Show full text]
  • Craniosynostosis Precision Panel Overview Indications Clinical Utility
    Craniosynostosis Precision Panel Overview Craniosynostosis is defined as the premature fusion of one or more cranial sutures, often resulting in abnormal head shape. It is a developmental craniofacial anomaly resulting from a primary defect of ossification (primary craniosynostosis) or, more commonly, from a failure of brain growth (secondary craniosynostosis). As well, craniosynostosis can be simple when only one suture fuses prematurely or complex/compound when there is a premature fusion of multiple sutures. Complex craniosynostosis are usually associated with other body deformities. The main morbidity risk is the elevated intracranial pressure and subsequent brain damage. When left untreated, craniosynostosis can cause serious complications such as developmental delay, facial abnormality, sensory, respiratory and neurological dysfunction, eye anomalies and psychosocial disturbances. In approximately 85% of the cases, this disease is isolated and nonsyndromic. Syndromic craniosynostosis usually present with multiorgan complications. The Igenomix Craniosynostosis Precision Panel can be used to make a directed and accurate diagnosis ultimately leading to a better management and prognosis of the disease. It provides a comprehensive analysis of the genes involved in this disease using next-generation sequencing (NGS) to fully understand the spectrum of relevant genes involved. Indications The Igenomix Craniosynostosis Precision Panel is indicated for those patients with a clinical diagnosis or suspicion with or without the following manifestations: ‐ Microcephaly ‐ Scaphocephaly (elongated head) ‐ Anterior plagiocephaly ‐ Brachycephaly ‐ Torticollis ‐ Frontal bossing Clinical Utility The clinical utility of this panel is: - The genetic and molecular confirmation for an accurate clinical diagnosis of a symptomatic patient. - Early initiation of treatment in the form surgical procedures to relieve fused sutures, midface advancement, limited phase of orthodontic treatment and combined 1 orthodontics/orthognathic surgery treatment.
    [Show full text]
  • Cranio-Facial Dysostosisin a Dorset Family
    Arch Dis Child: first published as 10.1136/adc.41.218.375 on 1 August 1966. Downloaded from Arch. Dis. Childh., 1966, 41, 375. Cranio-facial Dysostosis in a Dorset Family DAVID G. VULLIAMY and PETER A. NORMANDALE From the West Dorset Medical Society for Postgraduate Education and Research, Dorset County Hospital, Dorchester Crouzon (1912), whose name has been given to basis oftheir associated congenital anomalies or have the combination of developmental anomalies which been given eponyms. In Apert's disease (acro- he described as hereditary cranio-facial dysostosis, cephalosyndactyly) there is a high pointed skull due presented his first two cases to the Societe Medicale to early fusion of coronal and usually part of the des H6pitals de Paris. The patients, a mother sagittal and lambdoid sutures, in association with aged 29 years and her son aged 21 years, had variable degrees of syndactyly (Park and Powers, a malformation of the cranial vault consisting of 1920). It is the associated malformation rather protrusion in the region of the bregma, widening than the precise extent of the craniosynostosis which transversely, and shortening antero-posteriorly. is the guiding factor in differential diagnosis The outstanding facial features were bilateral between Apert's disease and Crouzon's disease, the exophthalmos, a beaked nose, a hypoplastic facial features of the latter being distinctive. From maxilla, and a narrow arched palate. the description of Crouzon's original cases it seems Descriptions of other similar cases followed (e.g. probable that there was synostosis mainly of the Debre and Petot, 1927), and the skull malformation coronal sutures, the protrusion in the region of the was shown to be due to premature fusion of cranial anterior fontanelle being due to the fact that fusion copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • Craniofacial Syndromes: Crouzon, Apert, Pfeiffer, Saethre-Chotzen, and Carpenter Syndromes, Pierre Robin Syndrome, Hemifacial Deformity 10/4/17, 406 PM
    Craniofacial Syndromes: Crouzon, Apert, Pfeiffer, Saethre-Chotzen, and Carpenter Syndromes, Pierre Robin Syndrome, Hemifacial Deformity 10/4/17, 406 PM Craniofacial Syndromes Updated: Feb 21, 2016 Author: Kongkrit Chaiyasate, MD, FACS; Chief Editor: Jorge I de la Torre, MD, FACS more... Crouzon, Apert, Pfeiffer, Saethre-Chotzen, and Carpenter Syndromes Crouzon Syndrome Crouzon syndrome was first described in 1912. Inheritance Inheritance is autosomal dominant with virtually complete penetrance. It is caused by multiple mutations of the fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 gene, FGFR2. [1, 2, 3] Features Features of the skull are variable. The skull may have associated brachycephaly, trigonocephaly, or oxycephaly. These occur with premature fusion of sagittal, metopic, or coronal sutures, with the coronal sutures being the most common. In addition, combinations of these deformities may be seen. [4] See the image below. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1280034-overview PaGe 1 of 61 Craniofacial Syndromes: Crouzon, Apert, Pfeiffer, Saethre-Chotzen, and Carpenter Syndromes, Pierre Robin Syndrome, Hemifacial Deformity 10/4/17, 406 PM Typical appearance of a patient with Crouzon syndrome, with maxillary retrusion, exorbitism, and pseudoprognathism. Anteroposterior view. View Media Gallery The orbits are shallow with resulting exorbitism, which is due to anterior positioning of the greater wing of the sphenoid. The middle cranial fossa is displaced anteriorly and inferiorly, which further shortens the orbit anteroposteriorly. The maxilla is foreshortened, causing reduction of the orbit anteroposteriorly. All these changes result in considerable reduction of orbital volume and resultant significant exorbitism. In severe cases, the lids may not close completely. The maxilla is hypoplastic in all dimensions and is retruded.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 3.1 Birth Defects Descriptions for NBDPN Core, Recommended, and Extended Conditions Updated March 2017
    Appendix 3.1 Birth Defects Descriptions for NBDPN Core, Recommended, and Extended Conditions Updated March 2017 Participating members of the Birth Defects Definitions Group: Lorenzo Botto (UT) John Carey (UT) Cynthia Cassell (CDC) Tiffany Colarusso (CDC) Janet Cragan (CDC) Marcia Feldkamp (UT) Jamie Frias (CDC) Angela Lin (MA) Cara Mai (CDC) Richard Olney (CDC) Carol Stanton (CO) Csaba Siffel (GA) Table of Contents LIST OF BIRTH DEFECTS ................................................................................................................................................. I DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS OF BIRTH DEFECTS ...................................................................................................... 1 FORMAT FOR BIRTH DEFECT DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................................................................................. 1 CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM ....................................................................................................................................... 2 ANENCEPHALY ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2 ENCEPHALOCELE ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3 HOLOPROSENCEPHALY.............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ocular Manifestations of Inherited Diseases Maya Eibschitz-Tsimhoni
    10 Ocular Manifestations of Inherited Diseases Maya Eibschitz-Tsimhoni ecognizing an ocular abnormality may be the first step in Ridentifying an inherited condition or syndrome. Identifying an inherited condition may corroborate a presumptive diagno- sis, guide subsequent management, provide valuable prognostic information for the patient, and determine if genetic counseling is needed. Syndromes with prominent ocular findings are listed in Table 10-1, along with their alternative names. By no means is this a complete listing. Two-hundred and thirty-five of approxi- mately 1900 syndromes associated with ocular or periocular manifestations (both inherited and noninherited) identified in the medical literature were chosen for this chapter. These syn- dromes were selected on the basis of their frequency, the char- acteristic or unique systemic or ocular findings present, as well as their recognition within the medical literature. The boldfaced terms are discussed further in Table 10-2. Table 10-2 provides a brief overview of the common ocular and systemic findings for these syndromes. The table is organ- ized alphabetically; the boldface name of a syndrome is followed by a common alternative name when appropriate. Next, the Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM™) index num- ber is listed. By accessing the OMIM™ website maintained by the National Center for Biotechnology Information at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, the reader can supplement the material in the chapter with the latest research available on that syndrome. A MIM number without a prefix means that the mode of inheritance has not been proven. The prefix (*) in front of a MIM number means that the phenotype determined by the gene at a given locus is separate from those represented by other 526 chapter 10: ocular manifestations of inherited diseases 527 asterisked entries and that the mode of inheritance of the phe- notype has been proven.
    [Show full text]
  • Cover and Comments 23-2
    BARROW QUARTERLY VOLUME 23 ◊ NUMBER 2 ◊ 2007 BARROW NEUROLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF ST. JOSEPH’S HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER • PHOENIX, ARIZONA Copyright © 2006, Barrow CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY Copyright © 2007, Barrow Neurological Institute COMMENTS No single discipline has the expertise to fully treat children with a craniofacial anomaly. Consequently, such children require care from many different disciplines. Typically, surgical, medical, dental, and psy- chosocial specialists are involved. When a large number of professionals are involved in the multifaceted care of patients, healthcare teams develop. Cleft and craniofacial teams, which were formed in response to the complex, life-long, ongoing clinical and psychosocial needs of this patient population, are widely considered an effective means to avoid fragmentation and dehumanization in the delivery of such highly specialized health care. Team care represents an improvement over splintered, community-based, multispecialty care. The benefits of healthcare delivery by the team approach include the abilities to provide interdisciplinary ser- vices, to address the emotional and psychological needs of patients and their family, and to perform mul- tifaceted examinations that enable comprehensive treatment plans to be formed based on the team’s rec- ommendations and the family’s preferences. Since 1986 the Barrow Craniofacial Center (formerly the Southwest Craniofacial Center) has been treating children and adults with cleft and craniofacial disorders from Arizona and the Southwest through this essential interdisciplinary team approach. The team helps address parental concerns about the choice and timing of treatment and the coordination of ongoing care. In addition to providing these clinical craniofacial services, the team conducts clinical research and provides education for students of these dis- ciplines.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 3.1 Birth Defects Descriptions for NBDPN Core, Recommended, and Extended Conditions Updated March 2015
    Appendix 3.1 Birth Defects Descriptions for NBDPN Core, Recommended, and Extended Conditions Updated March 2015 Participating members of the Birth Defects Definitions Group: Lorenzo Botto (UT) John Carey (UT) Cynthia Cassell (CDC) Tiffany Colarusso (CDC) Janet Cragan (CDC) Marcia Feldkamp (UT) Jamie Frias (CDC) Angela Lin (MA) Cara Mai (CDC) Richard Olney (CDC) Carol Stanton (CO) Csaba Siffel (GA) Table of Contents LIST OF BIRTH DEFECTS ................................................................................................................................. I DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS OF BIRTH DEFECTS ........................................................................................ 1 FORMAT FOR BIRTH DEFECT DESCRIPTIONS ......................................................................................................................... 1 CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM ........................................................................................................................ 2 ANENCEPHALY ............................................................................................................................................................... 2 ENCEPHALOCELE ............................................................................................................................................................ 3 HOLOPROSENCEPHALY .................................................................................................................................................... 4 SPINA BIFIDA WITHOUT ANENCEPHALY ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Congenital Anomalies
    Congenital Anomalies 740 Anencephalus and similar anomalies 7400 Anencephalus and similar anomalies 74000 Absence of brain 74001 Acrania 74002 Anencephaly 74003 Hemlanencephaly 74008 Anencephalus - Other 7401 Craniorachischisis 7402 Iniencephaly 74020 Closed Iniencephaly 74021 Open Iniencephaly 74029 Iniencephaly - Unspecified 741 Spina bifida 7410 Spina bifida - With hydrocephalus 74100 Spina bifia aperta, any site, with hydrocephalus 74101 Spina bifida (cystica), any site, with Arnold Chiari malformation and hydrocephalus (Arnold Chiari malformation NOS) 74102 Spina bifida (cystica), any site, with stenosed aqueduct of Sylvius 74103 Spina bifida cystica, cervical, with unspecified hydrocephalus 74104 Spina bifida cystica, thoracic, with unspecified hydrocephalus 74105 Spina bifida - lumbar, with unspecified hydrocephalus 74106 Spina bifida cystica, sacral, with unspecified hydrocephalus 74107 Spina bifida of any site with hydrocephalus of late onset 74108 Spina bifida - With hydrocephalus - Other 74109 Spina bifida - With hydrocephalus - Unspecified 7419 Spina bifida - Without mention of hydrocephalus 74190 Spina bifida aperta - Without mention of hydrocephalus 74191 Spina bifida cystica, cervical - Without mention of hydrocephalus 74192 Spina bifida cystica, thoracic - Without mention of hydrocephalus 74193 Spina bifida cystica, lumbar - Without mention of hydrocephalus 74194 Spina bifida cystica, sacral - Without mention of hydrocephalus 74198 Spina bifida - Without mention of hydrocephalus - Other 74199 Spina bifida - Without mention
    [Show full text]