Comparative Outcomes and Morphology Following Surgical Reconstruction for Mercedes Benz Craniosynostosis

Abstract

Objective

Mercedes Benz craniosynostosis is a multisutural pattern characterized by posterior vault constriction due to fusion of sagittal and bilateral lambdoid sutures. Middle-posterior cranial vault remodeling (MPCVR) and posterior cranial vault distraction osteogenesis (PCVDO) are commonly used to address posterior vault deficiency, but comparative data in this population remain limited. This study evaluates perioperative, volumetric, and craniometric outcomes following MPCVR and PCVDO in Mercedes Benz craniosynostosis.

Design

A retrospective review of computed tomographic images before and 1 year after surgery.

Setting

Tertiary pediatric institution.

Patients, Participants

Eighteen patients with Mercedes Benz craniosynostosis.

Interventions

MPCVR or PCVDO.

Main Outcome Measure(s)

Demographics, operative characteristics, and craniometric measurements.

Results

Eighteen patients were included; 50% underwent MPCVR, 27.8% PCVDO, and 22.2% strip craniectomy. PCVDO demonstrated a significantly shorter operative time than MPCVR (P = .008) and trended toward lower blood loss. MPCVR produced a 50.8% increase in total intracranial volume, with the greatest expansion in the posterior vault (60.6%). PCVDO resulted in a 28.6% total volume increase, with posterior expansion (21.5%). Craniometric outcomes showed MPCVR achieved larger gains in width (20.4%), middle height (19.3%), and posterior height (14.7%), whereas PCVDO produced greater increases in circumference (11.22%), cranial length (15.28%), and vertex angle (18.99%). Both procedures improved skull base angles, with larger reductions observed in the PCVDO group.

Conclusions

MPCVR and PCVDO exhibit distinct expansion patterns in Mercedes Benz craniosynostosis. MPCVR offers broad volumetric remodeling, while PCVDO provides greater longitudinal expansion. These findings support individualized selection of posterior vault techniques for this rare craniosynostosis subtype.

Keywords

craniosynostosis craniofacial morphology craniofacial surgery

Introduction

Mercedes Benz craniosynostosis is a rare and challenging form of multisutural synostosis characterized by premature fusion of the sagittal and bilateral lambdoid sutures, producing a distinctive tri-armed “Mercedes Benz” configuration of the posterior vault.^1-3 The complex craniosynostosis pattern is associated with substantial posterior vault constriction, diminished intracranial volume, and secondary compensatory deformities affecting the cranial base and vault.^3-7 Recently, genetic mutations in ERF have been shown to be associated with the tri-sutural pattern of Mercedes Benz craniosynostosis.^{8, 9} Owing to its rarity, the existing literature is limited to small case series and descriptive reports.

Two of the most commonly employed operative strategies include middle-posterior cranial vault remodeling (MPCVR), which provides immediate expansion through calvarial reshaping, and posterior cranial vault distraction osteogenesis (PCVDO), which gradually expands the vault through distraction forces.^3-6 Although both techniques aim to increase intracranial volume and improve the posterior skull contour, they differ in invasiveness and in their approach to skull expansion. Comparative data on surgical techniques for Mercedes Benz craniosynostosis are sparse, and volumetric and craniometric outcomes have not been extensively described.^3-6 The present study aims to provide a comparison of perioperative, volumetric, and craniometric outcomes following MPCVR or PCVDO in patients with Mercedes Benz craniosynostosis. By characterizing how each technique influences intracranial volume and cranial dimensions, this work aims to better define procedure-specific advantages to inform decision-making in the surgical care of this complex multisuture craniosynostosis pattern.

Methods

A retrospective review of 3-dimensionally rendered computed tomography (CT) images of patients diagnosed with Mercedes Benz craniosynostosis who underwent MPCVR or PCVDO was performed. Approval was obtained from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Institutional Review Board. Fusion of only the sagittal and bilateral lambdoid sutures was confirmed on CT imaging. No patients with identified syndromic diagnosis, other involved sutures, or any other craniofacial conditions were included. Operative intervention was offered when there was concern for the development of increased intracranial pressure or evidence of progressive craniofacial deformity. The operative approach was selected solely based on the surgeon's preference for MPCVR or PCVDO. Patients presenting with early, significant elevations in intracranial pressure underwent strip craniectomy as an initial intervention to provide timely decompression during infancy and were not included in the analysis of the current study. This approach was undertaken with the understanding that a secondary posterior cranial vault expansion would likely be required at an older age to achieve sufficient intracranial volume augmentation.

Middle-Posterior Cranial Vault Remodeling Technique

A bicoronal incision was made, and a subgaleal dissection was carried posteriorly to just above the torcula, then transitioned to a subperiosteal plane to the inferior occipital constriction, with anterior dissection beyond the coronal sutures and inferior reflection of the temporalis muscles. Parietal and occipital bone flaps were removed, and split calvarial and particulate bone were harvested. An occipital bandeau was harvested and divided in the midline, with parietal flaps replaced orthotopically and occipital flaps rotated 180°. The bandeau was outfractured bilaterally and fixed to the cranial base, creating a gap that was grafted with split calvarial bone. The parietal and occipital flaps were repositioned to widen the biparietal and vertex dimensions and secured with sutures and resorbable plates. Particulate bone was placed into residual gaps. The temporalis muscles were resuspended, and the scalp was closed in layers.

PCVDO Technique

A bicoronal incision was made, and a subgaleal dissection was carried posteriorly to just above the torcula, then transitioned to a subperiosteal plane to the inferior occipital constriction, with anterior dissection to the coronal sutures. A biparietal craniotomy was marked, crossing the lambdoid sutures bilaterally and extending through the interparietal midline and horizontally across the occiput superior to the torcula. Two cranial distraction devices were contoured and placed in a posterior parallel vector, and secured with self-drilling screws, with Gelfoam interposed for dural protection. All distractors were placed in the same vector across patients. Additionally, the midline was opened along its entire length to divide the craniotomy into 2 symmetric halves, and a third cranial distraction device was placed for transverse distraction.¹⁰ The scalp was closed in layers. The distraction protocol consisted of a latency period of 4 to 5 days, followed by 24 to 26 days of activation with 1 mm of daily distraction advancement, and then 4 to 6 weeks of consolidation.

CT imaging was obtained preoperatively and at 1 year postoperatively in a subgroup of patients (5 MPCVR, 5 PCVDO). Only patients with both pre- and postoperative CT imaging were included in the volumetric analysis. Three-dimensional CT images were rendered using Mimics 26 (Materialise NV, Belgium), and intracranial volume was evaluated using 3-Matic (Materialise NV, Belgium). The total intracranial volume was divided into the anterior, middle, and posterior fossa. Tracings from the border of the lesser wings of the sphenoid bone to the border of the cranial vault were used to separate the anterior fossa from the middle fossa. The middle fossa was separated from the posterior fossa by tracing the petrous ridges. Craniometric measurements included circumference, length (glabella—occipital protuberance), width (eurion—eurion), anterior height (nasion—calvarium), middle height (sella turcica—calvarium), posterior height (opisthion—calvarium), vertex angle (nasion—anterior sella turcica—vertex), petrous ridge angle (petrous ridge—sella turcica—petrous ridge), and lesser sphenoid angle (lesser sphenoid—sella turcica—lesser sphenoid) (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Craniometric measurements in patients with Mercedes Benz craniosynostosis: anterior, middle and posterior height (left), vertex angle (middle), petrous ridge angle and lesser sphenoid angle (right).

Results

Eighteen patients with Mercedes Benz craniosynostosis were included (Table 1). The cohort was 55.6% male and 44.4% female. All patients were White, and 83.3% identified as Hispanic. Nine patients (50.0%) underwent MPCVR, 5 (27.8%) underwent PCVDO, and 4 (22.2%) underwent strip craniectomy. All patients in both groups had identified Chiari malformations preoperatively. Hydrocephalus was noted in 22% of the MPCVR and 40% of the PCVDO groups. Postoperatively, all patients in both groups had stable Chiari malformations, and none had papilledema on ophthalmologic examination. Secondary procedures were common, with 22.2% of MPCVR and 75.0% of strip craniectomy patients requiring a secondary PCVDO procedure.

Table 1.

Demographics of Patients With Mercedes Benz Craniosynostosis.

Demographic	Patients
Total patients	18
Male	10 (55.56%)
Female	8 (44.44%)
White	18 (100%)
Hispanic	15 (83.33%)
Non-Hispanic	3 (16.67%)
Posterior cranial vault remodeling	9 (50.00%)
Posterior cranial vault distraction osteogenesis (PCVDO)	5 (27.78%)
Strip craniectomy	4 (22.22%)
Secondary PCVDO
Posterior cranial vault remodeling	2 (22.22%)
Strip craniectomy	3 (75.00%)

PCVDO = Posterior cranial vault distraction osteogenesis.

Perioperative characteristics of a subgroup of patients who underwent MPCVR and PCVDO are shown in Table 2. Age at presentation and age at surgery were similar between groups. PCVDO was associated with significantly shorter operative time compared with MPCVR (P = .008). Intraoperative blood loss was lower in the PCVDO cohort than in the MPCVR group, although the difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .067). Hospital length of stay was comparable between groups (P = .375).

Table 2.

Perioperative Data for Middle-Posterior Cranial Vault Remodeling (MPCVR) and Posterior Cranial Vault Distraction Osteogenesis (PCVDO) in Mercedes Benz Craniosynostosis.

	MPCVR	PCVDO	p-Value
Total patients	9 (50.00%)	5 (27.78%)
Age at presentation	20.24 ± 11.46 mo	20.75 ± 12.33 mo
Age at surgery	23.85 ± 12.94 mo	22.50 ± 12.86 mo
Operative time	5:28 ± 0.55 h	3:20 ± 0.19 h	.008*
Blood loss	258.33 ± 97.04 mL	145.00 ± 78.84 mL	.067
Hospital stay	88.00 ± 19.60 h	76.80 ± 20.08 h	.375

Volumetric analysis is summarized in Table 3. In the MPCVR cohort, total intracranial volume increased from 816.34 ± 331.18 cm³ preoperatively to 1230.77 ± 176.28 cm³ postoperatively, representing a 50.77% gain. The MPCVR group had a lower preoperative total volume than the PCVDO group, but the study was underpowered to detect a significant difference. MPCVR produced substantial increases across all subregions, including a 38.81% increase in anterior volume, 46.40% in middle volume, and 60.58% in posterior volume. In the PCVDO cohort, total volume increased from 1114.99 ± 257.92 cm³ preoperatively to 1291.27 ± 226.12 cm³ postoperatively, representing a 28.62% gain. Volume increases were concentrated primarily in the posterior vault (21.46%), with smaller gains in the middle (15.30%) and minimal change in the anterior vault (5.13%).

Table 3.

Volumetric Analysis of Middle-Posterior Cranial Vault Remodeling (MPCVR) and Posterior Cranial Vault Distraction Osteogenesis (PCVDO) in Mercedes Benz Craniosynostosis.

	Total Volume	Anterior Volume	Middle Volume	Posterior Volume
MPCVR
Preoperation	816.34 ± 331.18 cm³	185.99 ± 39.47 cm³	279.36 ± 120.66 cm³	350.98 ± 172.33 cm³
Postoperation	1230.77 ± 176.28 cm³	258.18 ± 21.25 cm³	408.98 ± 77.10 cm³	563.61 ± 111.79 cm³
Percentage	50.77%	38.81%	46.40%	60.58%
PCVDO
Preoperation	1114.99 ± 257.92 cm³	239.34 ± 90.44 cm³	387.88 ± 100.77 cm³	487.78 ± 195.70 cm³
Postoperation	1291.27 ± 226.12 cm³	251.61 ± 14.12 cm³	447.21 ± 58.97 cm³	592.46 ± 180.81 cm³
Percentage	28.62%	5.13%	15.30%	21.46%

Craniometric outcomes for both groups are shown in Table 4. MPCVR resulted in significant postoperative increases in cranial width (20.36%), middle height (19.31%), posterior height (14.66%), and vertex angle (11.74%). PCVDO showed larger relative increases in circumference (11.22%) and cranial length (15.28%) than MPCVR. PCVDO resulted in greater improvement in the vertex angle (18.99%) and larger reductions in the lesser sphenoid angle (−14.20%) and the petrous ridge angle (−7.29%) compared with MPCVR.

Table 4.

Craniometric Analysis of Middle-Posterior Cranial Vault Remodeling (MPCVR) and Posterior Cranial Vault Distraction Osteogenesis (PCVDO) in Mercedes Benz Craniosynostosis.

	MPCVR			PCVDO
	Pre-Op	Post-Op	Percentage	Pre-Op	Post-Op	Percentage
Circumference	42.41 ± 5.65 cm	45.73 ± 4.07 cm	7.82	44.51 ± 4.49 cm	49.51 ± 5.05 cm	11.22
Length	14.46 ± 2.62 cm	15.90 ± 2.09 cm	9.98	13.49 ± 2.77 cm	15.55 ± 3.83 cm	15.28
Width	10.72 ± 1.60 cm	12.90 ± 0.73 cm	20.36	12.29 ± 0.64 cm	13.46 ± 0.11 cm	9.51
Anterior height	6.83 ± 0.54 cm	6.02 ± 0.62 cm	3.17	6.05 ± 0.43 cm	6.35 ± 0.22 cm	4.87
Middle height	8.59 ± 0.77 cm	10.24 ± 1.12 cm	19.31	9.20 ± 0.25 cm	9.52 ± 0.78 cm	3.54
Posterior height	9.32 ± 1.69 cm	10.69 ± 1.29 cm	14.66	10.14 ± 1.17 cm	10.91 ± 1.58 cm	7.53
Vertex angle	91.54 ± 11.58	102.30 ± 4.36	11.74	93.19 ± 6.38	110.89 ± 5.93	18.99
Petrous ridge angle	104.36 ± 2.80	103.10 ± 5.32	−1.20	109.72 ± 4.38	101.72 ± 5.45	−7.29
Lesser sphenoid angle	140.24 ± 23.00	130.07 ± 22.96	−7.25	138.07 ± 26.19	118.46 ± 8.71	−14.20

Discussion

Mercedes Benz craniosynostosis represents a rare and complex form of multisutural cranial deformity, and operative strategies remain heterogeneous due to limited published data and variable cranial morphology. In this study, we present one of the most extensive series to date evaluating MPCVR and PCVDO in this population, with volumetric and craniometric comparisons. Our findings highlight meaningful differences in operative characteristics and postoperative cranial morphology that can help guide surgical decision-making. Secondary operations were relatively common in our study and the previous literature, underscoring the need for improved understanding of the differences in posterior vault techniques in Mercedes Benz craniosynostosis.⁶

When comparing perioperative outcomes, PCVDO was associated with significantly shorter operative time than MPCVR and a trend toward lower blood loss. However, this did not reach statistical significance. These findings align with prior literature describing distraction as a less invasive technique that gradually distributes expansion to the postoperative period.^11-13 Length of stay was comparable between groups, suggesting that the externalized distractors and activation phase of PCVDO do not impose additional inpatient burden.

Volumetric outcomes revealed important distinctions in how MPCVR and PCVDO reshape the cranial vault. MPCVR produced substantial increases across all cranial subregions, with the most significant relative gain observed in the posterior vault, consistent with the procedure's design to provide immediate, expansive remodeling. In contrast, PCVDO achieved more modest volumetric gains overall, with the most pronounced changes again concentrated in the posterior vault. The MPCVR group had a lower preoperative intracranial volume than the PCVDO group. Clinically volumetric analysis was not used directly for surgical decision-making, but it may have indirectly influenced decision-making through a more restricted cranial size. Our findings are similar to those by Marji et al., who demonstrated a 25.9% increase in total intracranial volume following PCVDO in 4 patients with Mercedes Benz craniosynostosis.⁴

PCVDO is often preferred over anterior cranial vault remodeling techniques in patients with significant intracranial volume deficiency, as it offers superior expansion.^14-17 However, volumetric comparison between PCVDO and MPCVR is limited. We found greater overall volumetric expansion in MPCVR than in PCVDO, including in the posterior fossa. The tri-sutural synostosis creates a severely constricted occipital coning that is not directly addressed by the osteotomies and posterior translation performed in PCVDO but is released and remodeled during MPCVR. Notably, anterior and middle volumes showed less expansion with PCVDO, suggesting that its expansion effect is more localized in the posterior vectors. In contrast, MPCVR may redistribute and enlarge the vault more globally, leading to increased volumetric expansion. Furthermore, the patients in our cohort had delayed presentation and older age at surgery, which is associated with diminished volume expansion and decreased ossification following PCVDO.^18-20 Additional gains may also be achieved with an infratrocular osteotomy compared to the supratrocular osteotomy used at our center.²¹ However, even with the greater expansion achieved in MPCVR, we found that 22% required a secondary posterior cranial vault expansion. This distinction between MPCVR and PCVDO is essential when selecting an operative approach based on individual patient morphology, which can vary based on whether the synostosis of the sagittal or the bilateral lambdoid sutures is the primary driver of cranial dysmorphology.^5-7

Craniometric analysis further demonstrated the differences between techniques. MPCVR resulted in substantial increases in cranial width and middle/posterior height, consistent with immediate reshaping of the posterior contour. Rhodes et al reported a trend toward a more brachycephalic skull shape in 6 patients following MPCVR, but this difference was not significant.³ PCVDO, while also increasing width and height, did so to a lesser degree, except for overall cranial length, which increased to a greater extent than MPCVR. Marji et al reported a greater increase in posterior height in 4 patients undergoing PCVDO, likely due to a posterior-superior vector rather than the posterior vector of the distractors used in our study.⁴ Additionally, both procedures improved the vertex angle, with PCVDO demonstrating a larger relative increase, likely due to the greater length expansion associated with distraction. Changes in skull base angles showed decreases in both groups, though more prominently with PCVDO. The gradual distraction of the posterior cranium allows controlled expansion, transmitting tension to the cranial base, leading to greater remodeling.^{18, 22} The posterior cranial base changes to the foramen magnum and expansion additionally have potential benefits of resolving Chiari malformations which are commonly associated with Mercedes Benz craniosynostosis.^3,23,24

Strip craniectomy was reserved for infants who presented at a young age with severe clinical or radiographic signs of elevated intracranial pressure, in whom immediate decompression was prioritized over definitive cranial vault reshaping. In these patients, limited strip craniectomies were performed to release the fused sutures and rapidly alleviate intracranial hypertension. This approach was undertaken with the understanding that strip craniectomy likely serves as a temporizing intervention rather than a definitive solution in the setting of Mercedes Benz craniosynostosis, given the extent of multisutural involvement and posterior vault constriction. As expected, the majority of these patients ultimately required secondary calvarial expansion at a later age to achieve adequate intracranial volume augmentation and durable morphologic correction. Secondary surgery was common following initial strip craniectomy, with 75% of patients subsequently undergoing PCVDO. In contrast to our experience, Hartman et al, reported that no patients treated with strip craniectomy required a secondary procedure in a series of 7 patients with Mercedez Benz craniosynostosis.²⁵

Patients in our cohort undergoing MPCVR were observed to undergo secondary surgery more often than those treated with PCVDO. Although cranial vault remodeling can achieve larger immediate increases in intracranial volume, over time relapse and diminished cranial growth required secondary intervention due to head shape in 2 patients. In contrast, distraction osteogenesis provides more gradual expansion with ongoing bone formation, which may reduce the likelihood of requiring additional surgical intervention. The majority of patients in our cohort presented at older ages, which may be due to the posterior sutures and, specifically, Mercedes Benz craniosynostosis, often having less noticeable deformities that may become more prominent with growth.^5,26 If presenting early without the need for immediate decompression, our protocol would be to delay treatment until either MPCVR or PCVDO can be performed, with the choice of operation based on patient-specific needs for cranial deformity.

This study is limited by its small sample size due to the rarity of Mercedes Benz craniosynostosis. The cohort size limits the ability to perform statistical analysis comparing volumetric and craniometric variables. Additionally, the surgeon's bias in selecting the surgical intervention for each patient limits comparisons between techniques. However, the findings provide insight into the postoperative changes that occur following MPCVR and PCVDO in Mercedes Benz craniosynostosis. Larger multicenter studies and the incorporation of long-term volumetric and craniometric outcomes will further clarify statistical differences in postoperative morphology and changes over time due to growth and remodeling.

Conclusion

MPCVR and PCVDO in our study were found to differ in the treatment of patients with Mercedes-Benz craniosynostosis. MPCVR provided more widespread volumetric expansion, with improvements in posterior height and width, which may be advantageous for patients with posterior constriction or global cranial volume deficiency. PCVDO offers a shorter operative time and greater gains in length, potentially benefiting patients who need gradual, posterior directional growth and reduced operative morbidity. However, surgeon bias in technique selection for each patient should be kept in mind.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Lucas M. Harrison

Rami R. Hallac

Ethical Statement

Institutional review board approval was granted for the current study.

Author Contribution Statements

LMH, RRH, AAK, and PSM contributed to project design. LMH and RRH performed data collection. LMH, RRH, AAK, and PSM performed data analysis and manuscript development.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Neuhäuser

Kaveggia

Opitz

. Studies of malformation syndromes of man XXXIX: A craniosynostosis-craniofacial dysostosis syndrome with mental retardation and other malformations: “Craniofacial dyssynostosis”. Eur J Pediatr. 1976;123(1):15-28. doi:10.1007/BF00497676

Moore

Abbott

Netherway

Menard

Hanieh

. Bilambdoid and posterior sagittal synostosis: The Mercedes Benz syndrome. J Craniofac Surg. 1998;9(5):417-422. doi:10.1097/00001665-199809000-00003

Rhodes

Kolar

Fearon

. Mercedes Benz pattern craniosynostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(1):299-304. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181c2a6aa

Marji

Block

Anstadt

Dvoracek

Bruce

Williams

Hall

Losee

Goldstein

. Posterior cranial vault distraction osteogenesis utilizing a posterior-superior distraction vector in the treatment of Mercedes Benz pattern craniosynostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(6):2059-2063. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000007646

Chivoret

Arnaud

Giraudat

O'Brien

Pamphile

Meyer

Renier

Collet

Di Rocco

. Bilambdoid and sagittal synostosis: Report of 39 cases. Surg Neurol Int. 2018;9:206. doi:10.4103/sni.sni_454_17

Tamada

Hikosaka

Sakamoto

Tsuda

Ihara

Kaneko

Kishi

. Clinical features of bilambdoid and sagittal synostosis (BLSS): A retrospective multicenter study in Japan. J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(6):2134-2138. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000007482

Harrison

Mathew

Hallac

Derderian

. Three-dimensional analysis of phenotypic variation in Mercedes Benz craniosynostosis. FACE. 2023;4(1):39-43. doi:10.1177/27325016221143313

Afshari

Gallo

Shafi

Grant

Drew

Noons

Jagadeesan

Evans

Brittain

Rodrigues

. ERF-related craniosynostosis and surgical management in the paediatric cohort. Childs Nerv Syst. 2023;39(4):983-988. doi:10.1007/s00381-022-05700-7

Glass

O'Hara

Canham

Cilliers

Dunaway

Fenwick

Jeelani

N-O

Johnson

Lester

Lord

, et al. ERF-related craniosynostosis: The phenotypic and developmental profile of a new craniosynostosis syndrome. Am J Med Genet A. 2019;179(4):615-627. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.61073

10.

Kalmar

Zapatero

Kosyk

Carlson

Swanson

Taylor

Bartlett

. Transverse distraction osteogenesis for posterior narrowing of the cranial vault. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2022;149(4):749e-752e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000008947

11.

Steinbacher

Skirpan

Puchała

Bartlett

. Expansion of the posterior cranial vault using distraction osteogenesis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127(2):792-801. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e318200ab83

12.

Taylor

Derderian

Bartlett

Fiadjoe

Sussman

Stricker

. Perioperative morbidity in posterior cranial vault expansion: Distraction osteogenesis versus conventional osteotomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129(4):674e-680e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182443164

13.

Derderian

Bastidas

Bartlett

. Posterior cranial vault expansion using distraction osteogenesis. Childs Nerv Syst. 2012;28(9):1551-1556. doi:10.1007/s00381-012-1802-0

14.

Derderian

Wink

McGrath

Collinsworth

Bartlett

Taylor

. Volumetric changes in cranial vault expansion: Comparison of fronto-orbital advancement and posterior cranial vault distraction osteogenesis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(6):1665-1672. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000001294

15.

Swanson

Samra

Bauder

Mitchell

Taylor

Bartlett

. An algorithm for managing syndromic craniosynostosis using posterior vault distraction osteogenesis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137(5):829e-841e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000002127

16.

Senda

Orgun

Shimizu

Shimoji

Miyajima

Arai

Mizuno

Komuro

. Quantitative analysis of change in intracranial volume after posterior cranial vault distraction and frontal orbital advancement/remodeling. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30(1):23-27. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000004948

17.

Fang

Dong

. Comparing the increased intracranial volume from different surgical methods for syndromic craniosynostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2022;33(8):2529-2533. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000008791

18.

Mazzaferro

Ter Maaten

Wes

Naran

Bartlett

Taylor

. A craniometric analysis of the posterior cranial base after posterior vault distraction. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30(6):1692-1695. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000005496

19.

Sayadi

Lujan-Hernandez

Givechian

Mackay

Lorenz

Grant

Mahaney

Hong

Khosla

. Success of bone ossification after posterior vault distraction osteogenesis in patients with craniosynostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2025;36(3):870-875. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000010844

20.

Naran

Mazzaferro

Wes

Larson

Bartlett

Taylor

. Posterior vault distraction osteogenesis: Rates of ossification in bone gaps after consolidation. J Craniofac Surg. 2022;33(5):1525-1528. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000008489

21.

Zapatero

Kosyk

Kalmar

Cheung

Carlson

Heuer

Bartlett

Taylor

Lang

S-S

Swanson

. How low should we go? Safety and craniometric impact of the low occipital osteotomy in posterior vault remodeling. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2022;150(5):1037e-1048e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000009626

22.

Ter Maaten

Mazzaferro

Wes

Naran

Bartlett

Taylor

. Craniometric analysis of frontal cranial morphology following posterior vault distraction. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(5):1169-1173. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000004473

23.

Lin

Zhang

Hoppe

Paliga

Swanson

Bartlett

Taylor

. Onset and resolution of chiari malformations and hydrocephalus in syndromic craniosynostosis following posterior vault distraction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;144(4):932-940. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000006041

24.

Cobb

Pan

Zhu

Swanson

Baumgartner

Lopez

. Posterior cranial vault distractor osteogenesis for the treatment of chiari malformation type 1: A systematic review of the literature. J Craniofac Surg. 2025;36(1):182-185. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000010677

25.

Hartman

Proctor

. Surgical management of Mercedes-Benz pattern synostosis with early endoscopic strip craniectomy. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2025;37(2):147-151. doi:10.3171/2025.8.PEDS25157

26.

Seruya

Boyajian

Myseros

Yaun

Keating

Rogers

. Age at initial consultation for craniosynostosis: Comparison across different patients characteristics. J Craniofac Surg. 2013;24(1):96-98. doi:10.1097/SCS.0b013e318270fb83