• T Picart, P A Beuriat, A Szathmari, F Di Rocco, and C Mottolese.
• Department of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Hôpital Femme Mère Enfant, 32, avenue du Doyen Jean-Lépine, 69677 Bron cedex, France; Claude-Bernard University Lyon 1, 8, avenue Rockefeller, 69003 Lyon; Reference center for Craniosynostosis, Hôpital Femme Mère Enfant, 32, avenue du Doyen Jean-Lépine, 69677 Bron cedex, France.
• Neurochirurgie. 2020 Apr 1; 66 (2): 102-109.

BackgroundCranial deformations have historically aroused the interest of people worldwide. One of the more debated points about positional plagiocephaly is the choice of the treatment. In this article, the senior author (CM) shares his experience on almost 30 years of use of the helmet molding therapy in children with deformation plagiocephaly.Methods And PopulationWe retrospectively and systematically reviewed the cases of 2188 patients (75% males and 25% females) presenting positional head deformity and treated between 1991 and 2013 with a cranial helmet. To assess the effectiveness of the helmet, we compared the cranial index in bilateral plagiocephaly and the Cranial Diagonals Difference (CDD) in unilateral plagiocephaly at the beginning and at the end of the treatment.ResultsThe cranial indexes ranged between 94.4% and 124.2% before the treatment and decreased significantly between 86.8% and 121.4% after the treatment (P<0.01). The CDD ranged between 0.3 cm and 4.5 cm with an average of 1.50±0.54 cm before the treatment and decreased significantly between 0.1 cm and 2.5 cm with an average of 0.72±0.37 cm after the treatment (P<0.01). For unilateral plagiocephaly, at the beginning of the treatment, 2.5% children presented a mild plagiocephaly, 19.6% a moderate plagiocephaly and 77.9% a severe plagiocephaly. At the end of the treatment, the deformation was classified as mild in 40.2% children, moderate in 44.3% children and severe in 15.5% children with significantly less children in the most severe subgroups (P<0.01) Facial symmetry pre-existed before the treatment in 13.7% of children. This rate was significantly increased at the end of the treatment to 66.7% (P<0.01). In only 8 cases (0.2%), the helmet therapy did not allow to obtain correct clinical results and a surgical posterior cranial remodeling was performed.ConclusionsThe results observed in this series confirms that cranial helmet is a simple and well tolerated alternative which bring satisfying results. Its success implies a good collaboration with parents and a management both by orthoptist, physiotherapist and doctor. Nevertheless, it remains many controversies in the literature concerning in particular long-term cosmetic and functional outcomes. A long-term multicentric prospective study could enable to remove doubts.Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.

24 keywords...

hide…