| Literature DB >> 26251799 |
Edward E Kerr1, Ruben Fragoso2, Rudolph J Schrot1, Kiarash Shahlaie1.
Abstract
Objectives Complete removal of infiltrated bone is required to achieve a Simpson Grade 1 meningioma resection. Reconstruction of the resulting bone defect is typically achieved with a nonnative implant that can result in poor cosmesis, foreign body reaction, or infection. Extracorporeal irradiation and reimplantation of tumorous bone has been used for limb-sparing surgery with excellent results, but this treatment option is not routinely considered in meningioma surgery. We present a case of anterior fossa meningioma with tumorous overlying calvarium that was successfully managed with intraoperative extracorporeal irradiation and reimplantation. Design, Setting, and Participant A 37-year-old woman with persistent chronic headaches was found to have an anterior skull base meningioma with extension into the forehead frontal bone. Concurrently with mass resection, the bone flap was irradiated intraoperatively with 120 Gy. After resection of the tumor, the bone flap was replaced in its native position. Main Outcome Measures and Results Twenty-nine months postoperatively, the patient had an excellent cosmetic outcome with no radiographic evidence of tumor recurrence or significant bone flap resorption. Conclusion Intraoperative extracorporeal irradiation of tumorous calvaria during meningioma surgery is an effective, logistically feasible treatment option to achieve local tumor control and excellent cosmetic outcome.Entities:
Keywords: extracorporeal irradiation; meningioma; skull reconstruction; tumorous calvarium
Year: 2015 PMID: 26251799 PMCID: PMC4520997 DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1554908
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Neurol Surg Rep ISSN: 2193-6358
Fig. 1Preoperative (A) sagittal and (B) axial computed tomography scan demonstrating extensive bony involvement of the meningioma.
Fig. 2Intraoperative photographs depicting the bicoronal incision (A) and the removed calvarial flap before (B) and after (C) gauze packing to facilitate a homogeneous extracorporeal radiation dose. The fully packaged flap (D) was transported to the radiation suite, treated in the linear accelerator (E), and reimplanted in the native position (F).
Fig. 3Preoperative and 19-month postoperative photographs depicting cosmetic outcome.
Fig. 4(A) Three-dimensional and (B) axial computed tomography scans 19 months after surgery, demonstrating feathering of bone edges with preservation of normal contours.
Fig. 5Preoperative and 29-month postoperative sagittal contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the head demonstrating postoperative absence of dural enhancement and expansion of the cerebrum into the space previously occupied by tumorous bone.
Implant options
| Category | Implant | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alloplastic | |||
| Titanium mesh | Commonly used, widely available, highly biocompatible | Unsuitable for large defect reconstruction due to malleability, suboptimal cosmesis | |
| Polymethyl-methacrylate | Commonly used, widely available, lightweight, rigid, relatively low cost, low thermal conductivity, not ferromagnetic, biologically inert | Not vascularized by or incorporated into adjacent bone (infectious risk), exposes patient to potentially toxic monomer, suboptimal cosmesis | |
| Hydroxyapatite | Malleable before hardening (cosmetic advantage), osteoconductive, resistant to infection | High cost, does not fully convert to bone (relatively brittle) | |
| Polyethylene | Osteoconductive, biologically inert | High infection rate | |
| Bioactive glasses | Available as preformed implant or as malleable particulate material, nearly cosmetically ideal when preformed from preoperative imaging | High cost, difficult to reshape preformed implants intraoperatively, preformed implant requires radiation exposure and second surgery | |
| Biological | |||
| Xenograft | No donor site morbidity | Unacceptable risk of immune reaction and infectious agent transmission in light of other available options | |
| Heterotopic autograft | No risk of immune reaction | Donor site morbidity, suboptimal cosmesis | |
| Native autograft | Cosmetically optimal implant, cost effective, no risk of immune reaction | Requires sterilization of tumor cells |
Tumor sterilization techniques for native autograft
| Method | Technique | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|
| Heat | |||
| Autoclaving | Cost effective, easily performed | Compromises structural integrity, leads to resorption and poor cosmesis | |
| Boiling/Pasteurization | Cost effective, easily performed | Compromises structural integrity, leads to resorption and poor cosmesis | |
| Irradiation | |||
| Extracorporeal Irradiation | Cosmetically superior to other options, possibly lower likelihood of resorption than with heat sterilization, proven effective since 1968 in orthopedic literature for limb-sparing procedures | Logistically more complicated and less cost effective to perform than heat sterilization |