The objective of this literature review was to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the current understanding of the genetic etiology for non-syndromic sagittal craniosynostosis.
Using the PubMed database and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), we systematically reviewed relevant records on germline genetics in children with non-syndromic sagittal craniosynostosis.
Two hundred two records were identified, of which 25 were included following title and abstract screening and subsequent full-text review. The 25 records in combination included 829 children with non-syndromic sagittal craniosynostosis. A likely pathogenic or pathogenic germline variant was reported for 9.8% of the 827 patients for whom germline genetic testing was performed. The reported variants were distributed across 50 different genes, with more than one variant detected in 13 genes.
Based on the existing literature, genetic predisposition is likely to play a role in at least 9% of children with non-syndromic sagittal craniosynostosis. Future studies will benefit from international consensus in terms of diagnostic nomenclature and a higher level of standardization across study methodologies and bioinformatic approaches.

The article presents a rare clinical case of isolated sagittal craniosynostosis in dichorionic diamniotic twins. The review addresses issues of epidemiology, etiology, and pathogenesis of craniosynostosis in this group of patients.
В статье представлено редкое клиническое наблюдение изолированного сагиттального краниосиностоза у биамниотических дихориальных близнецов (двойня). Обзор публикаций включает вопросы эпидемиологии, этиологии, патогенеза краниосиностозов у данной группы пациентов.

OBJECTIVE: In this systematic review and meta-analysis the authors aimed to directly compare open surgical and endoscope-assisted techniques for the treatment of sagittal craniosynostosis, focusing on the outcomes of blood loss, transfusion rate, length of stay, operating time, complication rate, cost, and cosmetic outcome.
METHODS: A literature search was performed in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant articles were identified from 3 electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL [Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials]) from their inception to August 2017. The quality of methodology and bias risk were assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. Effect estimates between groups were calculated as standardized mean differences with 95% CIs. Random and fixed effects models were used to estimate the overall effect.
RESULTS: Of 316 screened records, 10 met the inclusion criteria, of which 3 were included in the meta-analysis. These studies reported on 303 patients treated endoscopically and 385 patients treated with open surgery. Endoscopic surgery was associated with lower estimated blood loss (p < 0.001), shorter length of stay (p < 0.001), and shorter operating time (p < 0.001). From the literature review of the 10 studies, transfusion rates for endoscopic procedures were consistently lower, with significant differences in 4 of 6 studies; the cost was lower, with differences ranging from $11,603 to $31,744 in 3 of 3 studies; and the cosmetic outcomes were equivocal (p > 0.05) in 3 of 3 studies. Finally, endoscopic techniques demonstrated complication rates similar to or lower than those of open surgery in 8 of 8 studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic procedures are associated with lower estimated blood loss, operating time, and days in hospital. Future long-term prospective registries may establish advantages with respect to complications and cost, with equivalent cosmetic outcomes. Larger studies evaluating patient- or parent-reported satisfaction and optimal timing of intervention as well as heterogeneity in outcomes are indicated.