Literature DB >> 24036124

Autologous and acrylic cranioplasty: a review of 10 years and 258 cases.

Daniel R Klinger1, Christoper Madden2, Joseph Beshay2, Jonathan White2, Kenneth Gambrell3, Kim Rickert2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Cranioplasty is a well-accepted neurosurgical procedure that has application to a wide range of pathologies. Given the varied need for both autologous and synthetic cranial grafts, it is important to establish rates of procedural complication.
METHODS: A retrospective review identified 282 patients undergoing cranioplasty at our institution over a 10-year period, of which 249 patients underwent 258 cranioplasties with either autologous or acrylic flaps. A database including patient age, gender, presenting diagnosis, hospital of surgery, presence of a drain, and surgical complications was created in order to analyze the autologous and acrylic cranioplasty data.
RESULTS: A total of 28 complications were noted, yielding a rate of 10.9% (28/258). There was no statistically significant difference in infection rate between autologous and acrylic cranioplasty (7.2% vs. 5.8%, P=0.80). Male patients (P=0.007), tumor patients (P=0.02), and patients undergoing surgery at the county hospital (P=0.06) sustained a statistically higher rate of infection. Among traumatic brain injury patients, complex injuries and surgical involvement of the frontal sinus carried a significantly higher infection rate of 17% and 38.5%, respectively (P=0.03, P=0.001). Postoperative epidural hematoma requiring reoperation occurred in 3.5% (9/258) with no difference in hematoma rate with placement of a drain (P=1).
CONCLUSIONS: Cranioplasty carries a significant risk of infection and postoperative hematoma. In this large series comparing autologous and acrylic flaps, male patients, tumor patients, and those undergoing surgery at the county hospital were at increased risk of postoperative infection. Among traumatic brain injury cases, complex injuries and cases with surgical involvement of the frontal sinus may portend a higher risk.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cranioplasty; Craniotomy/craniectomy; Hemorrhage; Infection; Traumatic brain injury

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24036124     DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2013.08.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World Neurosurg        ISSN: 1878-8750            Impact factor:   2.104


  28 in total

Review 1.  The Recent Revolution in the Design and Manufacture of Cranial Implants: Modern Advancements and Future Directions.

Authors:  David J Bonda; Sunil Manjila; Warren R Selman; David Dean
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 4.654

2.  Complications of cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy for traumatic brain injury: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jack Henry; Michael Amoo; Adam Murphy; David P O'Brien
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  2021-03-23       Impact factor: 2.216

3.  Decompressive craniectomy and CSF disorders in children.

Authors:  Marie Manfiotto; Carmine Mottolese; Alexandru Szathmari; Pierre-Aurelien Beuriat; Olivier Klein; Matthieu Vinchon; Edouard Gimbert; Thomas Roujeau; Didier Scavarda; Michel Zerah; Federico Di Rocco
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2017-09-06       Impact factor: 1.475

4.  Long-Term Characterization of Cranial Defects After Surgical Correction for Single-Suture Craniosynostosis.

Authors:  Gary B Skolnick; Sindhoora Murthy; Kamlesh B Patel; Zhiyang Huang; Sybill D Naidoo; Tao Ju; Matthew D Smyth; Albert S Woo
Journal:  Ann Plast Surg       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 1.539

Review 5.  Complications and cosmetic outcomes of materials used in cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy-a systematic review, pairwise meta-analysis, and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jakob V E Gerstl; Luis F Rendon; Shane M Burke; Joanne Doucette; Rania A Mekary; Timothy R Smith
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  2022-05-20       Impact factor: 2.216

6.  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 7.  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

Review 8.  A systematic review and meta-analysis of factors involved in bone flap resorption after decompressive craniectomy.

Authors:  Francesco Signorelli; Martina Giordano; Valerio Maria Caccavella; Eleonora Ioannoni; Camilla Gelormini; Anselmo Caricato; Alessandro Olivi; Nicola Montano
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2022-01-21       Impact factor: 3.042

9.  Reconstruction of Large Calvarial Defects Using Titanium Mesh Versus Autologous Split Thickness Calvarial Bone Grafts: A Comprehensive Comparative Evaluation of the Two Major Cranioplasty Techniques.

Authors:  Colonel Priya Jeyaraj
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2017-09-27

10.  Effect of cranioplasty timing on the functional neurological outcome and postoperative complications.

Authors:  Ahmed Aloraidi; Ali Alkhaibary; Ahoud Alharbi; Nada Alnefaie; Abeer Alaglan; Abdulaziz AlQarni; Turki Elarjani; Ala Arab; Jamal M Abdullah; Abdulaziz Oqalaa Almubarak; Munzir Abbas; Ibtesam Khairy; Wedad H Almadani; Mohammed Alowhaibi; Abdulaziz Alarifi; Sami Khairy; Ahmed Alkhani
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2021-06-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.