ArticleArchives of craniofacial surgery2026
Non-syndromic craniosynostosis: contemporary concepts in biology, diagnosis, and distraction-based operative strategy.
Article in Archives of craniofacial surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-syndromic craniosynostosis is the most common clinical form of craniosynostosis, but the mature phenotype cannot be accounted for by a purely local model of premature suture fusion. The deformity is the product of interactions among calvarial growth, cranial base geometry, dural and mesenchymal signaling, orbital development, and regional soft-tissue adaptation. This narrative review examines current evidence on epidemiology, developmental biology, diagnosis, imaging, operative timing, and surgical management, with emphasis on systematic reviews, multicenter and population-based data, comparative cohorts, and larger independent series. Contemporary options-conventional cranial vault remodeling, fronto-orbital advancement and remodeling, endoscope-assisted suturectomy with postoperative orthotic therapy, spring-assisted techniques, and distraction osteogenesis-each occupy a legitimate place in selected age groups and phenotypes. This review gives particular attention to distraction because of its potential for individualized, three-dimensional correction: it is the approach in which vector, magnitude, and regional expansion can be adjusted while new bone forms and the surrounding soft-tissue envelope adapts, which is precisely what a three-dimensional deformity demands. Current comparative evidence does not establish superiority for every subtype, but the biologic rationale and available clinical results justify a broader role for distraction in contemporary reconstruction. Osteotomy design and vector geometry should follow the dominant phenotype: transverse expansion when biparietal restriction predominates in sagittal synostosis; multivector correction when orbital, skull-base, or posterior vault distortion is established; and a higher operative threshold in metopic synostosis, where true fronto-orbital narrowing-not suture fusion alone-should drive the decision. Outcomes should be judged by deformity-specific three-dimensional balance, functional safety, treatment burden, and long-term stability, and not by a single cranial index.
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.