ArticleComputer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering2025
Towards a radiation free numerical modelling framework to predict spring assisted correction of scaphocephaly.
Article in Computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sagittal Craniosynostosis (SC) is a congenital craniofacial malformation, involving premature sagittal suture ossification; spring-assisted cranioplasty (SAC) - insertion of metallic distractors for skull reshaping - is an established method for treating SC. Surgical outcomes are predictable using numerical modelling, however published methods rely on computed tomography (CT) scans availability, which are not routinely performed. We investigated a simplified method, based on radiation-free 3D stereophotogrammetry scans. Eight SAC patients (age 5.1 ± 0.4 months) with preoperative CT and 3D stereophotogrammetry scans were included. Information on osteotomies, spring model and post-operative spring opening were recorded. For each patient, two preoperative models (PREOP) were created: i) CT model and ii) S model, created by processing patient specific 3D surface scans using population averaged skin and skull thickness and suture locations. Each model was imported into ANSYS Mechanical (Analysis System Inc., Canonsburg, PA) to simulate spring expansion. Spring expansion and cranial index (CI - skull width over length) at times equivalent to immediate postop (POSTOP) and follow up (FU) were extracted and compared with in-vivo measurements. Overall expansion patterns were very similar for the 2 models at both POSTOP and FU. Both models had comparable outcomes when predicting spring expansion. Spring induced CI increase was similar, with a difference of 1.2%±0.8% for POSTOP and 1.6%±0.6% for FU. This work shows that a simplified model created from the head surface shape yields acceptable results in terms of spring expansion prediction. Further modelling refinements will allow the use of this predictive tool during preoperative planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.