The Role of Virtual Surgical Planning in Surgery for Complex Craniosynostosis.
Thomas A Imahiyerobo, Alyssa B Valenti, Sergio Guadix, Myles LaValley, Paul A Asadourian, Michelle Buontempo, Mark Souweidane, Caitlin Hoffman
Author Information
Thomas A Imahiyerobo: From the Department of Plastic Surgery, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, N.Y.
Alyssa B Valenti: From the Department of Plastic Surgery, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, N.Y.
Sergio Guadix: Department of Neurosurgery, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, N.Y.
Myles LaValley: Department of Plastic Surgery, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, N.Y.
Paul A Asadourian: Department of Plastic Surgery, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, N.Y.
Michelle Buontempo: Department of Neurosurgery, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, N.Y.
Mark Souweidane: Department of Neurosurgery, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, N.Y.
Caitlin Hoffman: Department of Neurosurgery, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, N.Y.
Background: Virtual surgical planning (VSP) decreases reliance on intraoperative subjective assessment of aesthetic and functional outcomes in craniofacial surgery. Here, we describe our experience of using VSP for complex craniosynostosis surgery to inform preoperative decision making and optimize postoperative outcomes. Methods: Chart review was performed for children treated with craniosynostosis at our institution from 2015 to 2021. Eight VSP maneuvers were defined and assigned to each patient when applicable: (1) complex cranioplasty: combined autologous and synthetic; (2) autologous cranioplasty; (3) synthetic cranioplasty; (4) vector analysis and distractor placement; (5) complex osteotomies; (6) multilayered intraoperative plans; (7) volume analysis; and (8) communication with parents. Outcomes between VSP and non-VSP cohorts were compared. Results: Of 166 total cases, 32 were considered complex, defined by multisutural craniosynostosis, syndromic craniosynostosis, or revision status. Of these complex cases, 20 underwent VSP and 12 did not. There was no difference in mean operative time between the VSP and non-VSP groups (541 versus 532 min, = 0.82) or in unexpected return to operating room (10.5% versus 8.3%, = 0.84). VSP was most often used to communicate the surgical plan with parents (90%) and plan complex osteotomies (85%). Conclusions: In this cohort, VSP was most often used to communicate the surgical plan with families and plan complex osteotomies. Our results indicate that VSP may improve intraoperative efficiency and safety for complex craniosynostosis surgery. This tool can be considered a useful adjunct to plan and guide intraoperative decisions in complex cases, reducing variability and guiding parental expectations.
