INTRODUCTION
Plagiocephaly, derived from the Greek words ‘plagio’, meaning ‘oblique’, and ‘kephale’, which means ‘head’, describes an asymmetric deformity of the skull that can occur anteriorly or posteriorly [
1]. Deformational plagiocephaly arises from repeated external pressure to the same area of the flexible cranium during the fetal or neonatal periods [
2]. When this repeated pressure is applied to one side of the occiput, it results in ipsilateral occipital flattening, frontal bone protrusion, and anterior shifting of the ipsilateral ear [
3]. Deformational plagiocephaly and brachycephaly affect approximately 20% of infants [
4]. This reflects an increase in the incidence of the condition after several countries implemented public-health campaigns that encouraged parents to position their babies in a supine sleeping position in order to prevent sudden infant death syndrome [
5].
In infants who were diagnosed with deformational plagiocephaly before the age of 6 months, deformational plagiocephaly was observed in nearly one-third of children re-examined at ages 2 to 3 years [
6]. Treatments of plagiocephaly include repositioning, physical therapy, and cranial-molding orthoses [
7]. Repositioning and physical therapy are routinely used prior to a trial of cranial-molding orthoses. Cranial-molding orthoses are generally custom-fitted orthoses that are designed to be worn 23 hours a day for several months, until either the child has achieved satisfactory cosmetic correction or has outgrown the helmet [
8].
There has been debate among physicians about whether cranial-molding orthoses is more effective than repositioning or physical therapy. A prospective cohort study reported an equal effectiveness of cranial-molding orthoses and skull deformation following its natural course [
9]. This study discouraged the use of cranial-molding orthoses as a standard treatment for infants with skull deformation. However, another prospective comparison study conducted for 36 posterior plagiocephaly patients reported a greater improvement in correction of asymmetry with cranial-molding orthoses than with repositioning [
10]. A systematic review of cranial-molding orthoses for plagiocephaly demonstrated a more significant and faster improvement of cranial asymmetry in infants with deformational plagiocephaly, especially if the asymmetry was severe and the cranial-molding orthosis was applied early in infancy [
8]. For infants who fail to improve with repositioning by age 6 months and who continue to have a severe deformity, many pediatric neurosurgeons and plastic surgeons recommend that these infants be treated with cranial-molding orthoses [
7]. The Congress of Neurological Surgeons reported an evidence-based guideline for cranial-molding orthotic treatment in 2016. According to this guideline, Level II using cranial-molding orthoses is recommended when moderate to severe plagiocephaly is persistent after a course of conservative treatment, or when infants present moderate to severe plagiocephaly at an advanced age [
8].
In childhood disease, evaluation of the parents’ perspectives on various interventions is considered important in healthcare decision-making and evaluation [
11]. Research on consumer perspectives, specifically the perspectives of the parents of children receiving the intervention, complements and extends data gathered from direct observation and provider perspectives on interventions, which can be more individualized and childcentered and/or family-centered based on understanding the parents’ perspectives on therapies.
However, there is a lack of research on the parents’ perspectives about cranial-molding orthoses for infants who were diagnosed with deformational plagiocephaly. Elwood et al. [
12] reported that parents rated head-shape improvement in cranial-molding orthotic treatment as 4.06 out of 5 (range 3–5, with 1 representing the least improvement and 5 representing the most). Katzel et al. [
13] surveyed parent ratings of children’s head shape before and after cranial-molding orthotic treatment and reported that parents perceived a large correction in head shape. The parents’ ratings before and after cranialmolding orthotic treatment were 2.99 and 7.88, respectively; a scale of 1 to 10 was used, with 1 representing abnormal and 10 representing normal.
However, there are no studies that have identified the factors that affect parental perspectives on cranial-molding orthoses. In this study, we assumed that the various clinical factors that were known to be related to the clinical outcomes of cranial-molding orthoses would affect the parents’ perspectives on it. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the parents’ perspectives and the clinical effectiveness of cranial-molding orthoses in infants with plagiocephaly.
DISCUSSION
In this study, the GAS T-score was significantly related to infant age, initial CVAI, and the difference in the CVAI over the course of treatment. Parents perceived that cranial-molding orthoses were more effective when their children had severe initial skull asymmetry and when the orthoses were applied earlier in infancy. Furthermore, greater asymmetry correction during the treatment was related to parents’ perception of goal achievement. On the other hand, the GAS T-score was not related to the terminal CVAI. Therefore, parental satisfaction was affected by how much asymmetry was corrected through the treatment, and not by how much asymmetry existed after the treatment. The GAS T-score was not related to the overall therapy duration and the duration of cranialmolding orthosis usage per day, perhaps because of observing only minimal differences in overall therapy duration and duration of cranial-molding orthosis usage per day between infants.
The mean GAS T-score for cranial-molding orthoses in this study was 51.94. Elwood et al. [
12] reported that parents rated head-shape improvement a 4.06 out of 5 when the cranial-molding orthotic treatment was applied. It is inappropriate to compare the results of this current study to the results of the Elwood et al. [
12], since different evaluation tools were used in the studies. However, we did observe a GAS T-score of 0 or more in more than 70% of parents, which was comparable to the results of the Elwood et al. [
12]. Parents’ perspectives are affected by many factors that include not only the degree of asymmetry correction, but also the cost, the difficulty of the treatment, the concern over adverse events, and the propensity of an individual parent. Understanding the parents’ perspectives is considered important in decision making and in the evaluation of interventions.
There were 48 (65% of the subjects) who had adverse events associated with the cranial-molding orthoses during the study. According to a previous study detailing the adverse events associated with the orthoses, the rate of adverse events was approximately 25%. In this study, pressure sores were the most common adverse events of cranial-molding orthoses (10.9%), followed by ethanol erythema (7.4%), improper fit (4.4%), and skin infection (1.3%) [
19]. A subsequent study showed that 54 children (26.3%) had minor adverse events during the course of cranial-molding orthotic treatment, which included pressure sores (13.7%), ethanol erythema (2.9%), skin erosion/skin infection (4.3%), or improper fit (5.4%) [
20]. A large prospective study of 260 patients who were treated with custom cranial-molding orthoses reported a morbidity rate of 0% [
21]. Another prospective study reported that all infants had one or more adverse events related to cranial-molding orthoses: problems with acceptance of the helmet (24%), skin irritation (96%), increased sweating (71%), unpleasant odor of the helmet (76%), pain associated with the helmet (33%), and parents’ feeling hindered from cuddling their child (77%) [
10].
However, only 35 of the parents were surveyed for adverse events during the cranial-molding orthoses, and the severity of those adverse events was not discussed in this study.
An explanation for the high rate of the adverse events in this study may be that it included very mild heat rash as an adverse event. However, most of the adverse events were mild and not complicated. All of the pressure sores presented as round, red-colored marks and did not damage the dermis. This study suggests that cranial-molding orthotic treatment is a relatively safe treatment. Although there were no serious side effects, the rate of adverse events was as high as 65%; hence medical monitoring should be performed during cranial-molding orthotic treatment.
The difference in the CVAI between the initiation and the termination of the treatment was significantly related to the infant age and the initial CVAI, as is consistent with previous studies [
22,
23]. When cut-off points were analyzed by using an ROC curve with a 95% CI, the infants who had started cranial-molding orthotic treatment younger than 23.5 weeks and had an initial CVAI of less than 8.50% showed a higher rate of therapeutic success (p=0.005 and p=0.000). Freudlsperger et al. [
24] reported a statistically relevant difference in the rate of successful treatment for a CVAI of 9.5% (p<0.001) and an initial treatment age of 25.5 weeks (p=0.0345). Studies by Graham et al. [
25] and Seruya et al. [
26] concluded that early cranial-molding orthotic treatment before 8 months resulted in better outcomes than did late treatment after 8 months and that infants treated with cranial-molding orthoses when they were older required a longer treatment. Seruya et al. [
26] also reported that improvement was still seen even in infants over 12 months of age at the time of cranial-molding orthotic treatment initiation.
Several limitations exist in this study. Even though a growing body of evidence supports the sensitivity of GAS over other standard measures, it was not easy to define specific goals for the correction of deformities. Therefore, we had to ask parents if their goals, which they set before treatment, were met after the cranial-molding orthotic treatment. Furthermore, 8 infants were excluded in the final analysis because they had ceased wearing the orthosis during the study period. Therefore, the achievement of cranial-molding orthotic treatment goals in this study may be overestimated.
In this study, the mean subject age at the initiation of cranial-molding orthotic therapy was 24.3±8.4 weeks and 50 infants initiated the therapy at the age of 6 months or less. Relatively young infants were included in this study to examine the parents’ perspectives and clinical effect of cranial orthotic therapy in young age. There were 26 infants (35%) who had mild asymmetric severity, defined as CVAI less than 7%, who were enrolled in this study to assess how the effect of cranial-molding orthotic therapy differs according to the severity [
15]. According to the results of this study, parent’s satisfaction and therapeutic efficacy were greater when cranial-molding orthoses were applied earlier in infancy. In addition, the ratio of normal CVAI values after cranial-molding orthotic treatment was higher in infants with an initially mild asymmetric severity. Further studies are needed to establish guidelines for appropriate age and severity of cranialmolding orthotic therapy.
Family-centered treatment is considered to be a best practice in early intervention and pediatric rehabilitation [
27]. There has been an increasing understanding of the family’s role in a child’s life and the importance of parental insights into their child’s abilities and needs. Therefore, outcomes should include family-centered assessment. Much of the research on quality of care has focused on the key outcomes of parental satisfaction, on reduced stress and worry, and on adherence to therapy programs, and these parental outcomes should certainly be considered [
28]. However, there is a lack of research on standard assessment of parents’ perspectives on cranial-molding orthotic treatment. This study used a family-centered assessment in cranial-molding orthotic treatment and demonstrated some factors that related to the parents’ perspectives. Therefore, cranial-molding orthotic treatment in plagiocephaly can be more individualized and child-centered and/or family-centered based on the results of this study.
Cranial-molding orthotic treatment is becoming more popular in Korea despite a lack of strong evidence. Anthropometric parameters including the CVAI cannot describe the whole nature of the plagiocephaly. It is necessary to create a new tool to evaluate parents’ perspectives on cranial-molding orthoses in a more objective way. Also, adverse events, including developmental delays, should be monitored and documented in cranial-molding orthotic treatment. Therefore, results of this study will contribute to developing methodology in the study of plagiocephaly for evidence-based practice.
In conclusion, although the rate of adverse events for cranial-molding orthotic treatment is relatively high, the anthropometric improvement, the treatment compliance, and the degree of parents’ perspectives are high. However, it is necessary to perform medical monitoring during cranial-molding orthotic treatment and to develop a new cranial-molding orthosis that can lower the rate of adverse events in the future. Finally, this study provides basic information for conducting a patient-centered assessment in infants and parents as an important criterion for establishing cranial-molding orthotic treatment as an evidence-based practice.