Literature DB >> 21342384

Bone flap storage following craniectomy: a survey of practices in major Australian neurosurgical centres.

Ivan Paul Bhaskar1, Nyi Nyi Zaw, Minghao Zheng, Gabriel Yin Foo Lee.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The resurgence of decompressive craniectomy surgeries for management of intracranial hypertension has led to a parallel increase in cranioplasty procedures for subsequent reconstruction of the resultant extensive skull defects. Most commonly, cranioplasties are performed using the patients' own cryopreserved skull flaps. Currently, there are no standardized guidelines for freeze-storage of bone flaps either nationally or internationally. In this initial study, the authors surveyed major neurosurgical centres throughout Australia to document current clinical practices.
METHODOLOGY: Twenty-five neurosurgical centres affiliated with major public, teaching hospitals in all Australian states were included in the current survey study. A standardized survey guide incorporating standardized questions was used for data collection either by phone interviews and/or electronic (email) communication. Details regarding bone flap preparation following craniectomy, temperature and duration of freeze-storage, infection control/micro-contamination detection protocols, pre-implantation procedures were specifically recorded.
RESULTS: Cranioplasty using cyropreserved autogenous bone flaps remains the most common (96%) mode of skull defect reconstruction in major neurosurgical centres throughout Australia. Following the initial craniotomy, the harvested skull flaps were most frequently (88%) double- or triple-bagged under dry, sterile conditions. In 16% of hospitals, skull flaps were irrigated either with antibiotic mixed-saline or Betadine prior to cryopreservation. Skull biopsies or swabs were obtained from the skull flaps for micro-contamination studies in accordance with departmental protocol in 68% of hospitals surveyed. Subsequently, the bone flaps were cryopreserved at wide ranging temperatures between -18°C to -83°C, for variable time intervals (6 months to 'until patient deceased'). Twelve neurosurgical centres (48%) elected for bone flap storage to be undertaken at the local bone bank. In the remainder (52%) of the hospitals, bone flaps were cryopreserved in locally maintained freezers. Prior to re-implantation of the skull flaps at subsequent cranioplasty surgeries, six (24%) of the neurosurgical centres had specific thawing procedures involving immersion of the frozen bone flaps in Ringer's solution and/or Betadine. Further pre-implantation bacteriological cultures from bone biopsies or swabs were obtained only in three (12%) hospitals.
CONCLUSIONS: This study has documented highly varied skull flap cryopreservation and storage practices in neurosurgical centres throughout Australia. These differences may contribute to relatively high complication rates of infection and bone resorption reported in the literature. The results of the current study argue for the further need of high quality clinical and basic science research, which aims to characterize the effect of current skull flap management practices and freeze-storage conditions on the biological and biomechanical properties of skull bone.
© 2010 The Authors. ANZ Journal of Surgery © 2010 Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21342384     DOI: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2010.05584.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  ANZ J Surg        ISSN: 1445-1433            Impact factor:   1.872


  13 in total

Review 1.  The storage of skull bone flaps for autologous cranioplasty: literature review.

Authors:  Vicente Mirabet; Daniel García; Nuria Yagüe; Luis Roberto Larrea; Cristina Arbona; Carlos Botella
Journal:  Cell Tissue Bank       Date:  2021-01-09       Impact factor: 1.522

2.  Compartmentalization of immune responses during Staphylococcus aureus cranial bone flap infection.

Authors:  Joseph Cheatle; Amy Aldrich; William E Thorell; Michael D Boska; Tammy Kielian
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  2013-06-07       Impact factor: 4.307

3.  Surface Area of Decompressive Craniectomy Predicts Bone Flap Failure after Autologous Cranioplasty: A Radiographic Cohort Study.

Authors:  W Chase Johnson; Vijay M Ravindra; Tristan Fielder; Mariam Ishaque; T Tyler Patterson; Michael J McGinity; John V Lacci; Ramesh Grandhi
Journal:  Neurotrauma Rep       Date:  2021-08-27

Review 4.  The Materials Utilized in Cranial Reconstruction: Past, Current, and Future.

Authors:  Haley Meyer; Syed I Khalid; Amir H Dorafshar; Richard W Byrne
Journal:  Plast Surg (Oakv)       Date:  2020-09-04       Impact factor: 0.558

5.  Delayed Cranioplasty: Outcomes Using Frozen Autologous Bone Flaps.

Authors:  Daniel Hng; Ivan Bhaskar; Mumtaz Khan; Charley Budgeon; Omprakash Damodaran; Neville Knuckey; Gabriel Lee
Journal:  Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr       Date:  2014-12-17

6.  Prefabricated patient-matched cranial implants for reconstruction of large skull defects.

Authors:  Jarle Sundseth; Jon Berg-Johnsen
Journal:  J Cent Nerv Syst Dis       Date:  2013-02-20

7.  Decompressive craniectomy bone flap hinged on the temporalis muscle: A new inexpensive use for an old neurosurgical technique.

Authors:  A Olufemi Adeleye; A Luqman Azeez
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2011-10-18

8.  Cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy: An institutional audit and analysis of factors related to complications.

Authors:  Zain A Sobani; Muhammad Shahzad Shamim; Syed Nabeel Zafar; Mohsin Qadeer; Najiha Bilal; Syed Ghulam Murtaza; Syed Anther Enam; Muhammad Ehsan Bari
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2011-09-17

9.  Bone Flap Resorption Following Cranioplasty after Decompressive Craniectomy: Preliminary Report.

Authors:  Ji Sang Kim; Jin Hwan Cheong; Je Il Ryu; Jae Min Kim; Choong Hyun Kim
Journal:  Korean J Neurotrauma       Date:  2015-04-30

10.  Cranioplasty with autologous cryopreserved bone after decompressive craniectomy: complications and risk factors for developing surgical site infection.

Authors:  J Sundseth; A Sundseth; J Berg-Johnsen; W Sorteberg; K-F Lindegaard
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  2014-02-04       Impact factor: 2.216

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.