Observational analysis compares traditional anthropometric measurements and 3D imaging in infants, indicating varying effectiveness for cranial deformity assessment.
Positional cranial deformities are frequently observed in early infancy. The lack of a clinically proven measure to quantify the severity and change of positional cranial deformities makes the treatment of cranial deformities controversial. The use of anthropometric measurements is a recommended method. Although anthropometric measurements with calipers have controversial anthropometric measurement values in the literature, it remains the most practical and cheapest tool for deciding on a cranial helmet and monitoring the effectiveness of the helmet. In this study, the reliability and validity of this measurement method were investigated. Traditional anthropometric measurements of the infants’ heads were taken by one researcher while the second researcher scanned the infant’s head and determined the anthropometric values in the scan. Cranial measurements of metal calipers, 3D calipers and scan data using the TALEE program were compared in infants diagnosed with plagiocephaly, brachycephaly, and asymmetric brachycephaly. Right ft-left ld, left ft-right ld, left ft-right ld, cranial width and length values were evaluated as measurement parameters and mean, SD, variance, and Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated for each measurement method. It was found that the highest consistency was obtained in the cranial width measurement, followed by left ft-right ld and cranial length measurements, respectively. A high correlation ( r >0.90, P <0.01) was found between the 3D caliper and TALEE measurements in the asymmetric brachycephaly group, while the 3D caliper showed lower variability in the plagiocephaly and brachycephaly groups. When the mean and SD values were analyzed, no statistically significant difference was found between metal caliper and 3D caliper measurements. It is thought that the 3D caliper method may provide more reliable and consistent measurements in cranial deformity evaluations and may be preferred for clinical use, especially in asymmetric deformities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Uncu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: