Stephen Honeybul1, Courtney Janzen2, Kate Kruger2, Kwok M Ho3. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Australia. Electronic address: stephen.honeybul@health.wa.gov.au. 2. Department of Occupational Therapy, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Australia. 3. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia; School of Population Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia; School of Veterinary & Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is a measureable change in neurologic function after cranioplasty. METHODS: This is a prospective single-surgeon, single-center study. Fifty patients who required a cranioplasty procedure were assessed neurologically within 72 hours before and 7 days after surgery. The assessment tools were the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and the Cognitive assessment report (Cognistat). The scores for both assessments were calculated and then compared before and after surgery. RESULTS: FIM assessment was performed on all fifty patients, and a Cognistat assessment was performed on 47 patients. Most improvements were seen in the Cognistat scores; however, there appeared to be no specific areas in which there was consistent improvement. There were substantial improvements in the Cognistat assessment in 9 patients. One patient had a much-improved FIM assessment (improved from 18 to 34), but a Cognistat assessment was not possible because of poor neurologic function. These results suggested that improvements after cranioplasty were more likely to occur in the domain of cognitive function than motor function, although overall these results did not reach statistically significance. Bifrontal (vs. unilateral) cranioplasty, timing between decompression and cranioplasty, and age of the patients did not appear to affect the postoperative FIM scores, after we adjusted for preoperative FIM scores and surgical complications. CONCLUSIONS: A small but significant number of patients appear to improve clinically after cranioplasty. Neurologic susceptibility to a skull defect may be more common than had been appreciated previously. Crown
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is a measureable change in neurologic function after cranioplasty. METHODS: This is a prospective single-surgeon, single-center study. Fifty patients who required a cranioplasty procedure were assessed neurologically within 72 hours before and 7 days after surgery. The assessment tools were the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and the Cognitive assessment report (Cognistat). The scores for both assessments were calculated and then compared before and after surgery. RESULTS: FIM assessment was performed on all fifty patients, and a Cognistat assessment was performed on 47 patients. Most improvements were seen in the Cognistat scores; however, there appeared to be no specific areas in which there was consistent improvement. There were substantial improvements in the Cognistat assessment in 9 patients. One patient had a much-improved FIM assessment (improved from 18 to 34), but a Cognistat assessment was not possible because of poor neurologic function. These results suggested that improvements after cranioplasty were more likely to occur in the domain of cognitive function than motor function, although overall these results did not reach statistically significance. Bifrontal (vs. unilateral) cranioplasty, timing between decompression and cranioplasty, and age of the patients did not appear to affect the postoperative FIM scores, after we adjusted for preoperative FIM scores and surgical complications. CONCLUSIONS: A small but significant number of patients appear to improve clinically after cranioplasty. Neurologic susceptibility to a skull defect may be more common than had been appreciated previously. Crown
Authors: Kacper Kroczek; Paweł Turek; Damian Mazur; Jacek Szczygielski; Damian Filip; Robert Brodowski; Krzysztof Balawender; Łukasz Przeszłowski; Bogumił Lewandowski; Stanisław Orkisz; Artur Mazur; Grzegorz Budzik; Józef Cebulski; Mariusz Oleksy Journal: Polymers (Basel) Date: 2022-04-09 Impact factor: 4.967
Authors: Peter J Hutchinson; Angelos G Kolias; Tamara Tajsic; Amos Adeleye; Abenezer Tirsit Aklilu; Tedy Apriawan; Abdul Hafid Bajamal; Ernest J Barthélemy; B Indira Devi; Dhananjaya Bhat; Diederik Bulters; Randall Chesnut; Giuseppe Citerio; D Jamie Cooper; Marek Czosnyka; Idara Edem; Nasser M F El-Ghandour; Anthony Figaji; Kostas N Fountas; Clare Gallagher; Gregory W J Hawryluk; Corrado Iaccarino; Mathew Joseph; Tariq Khan; Tsegazeab Laeke; Oleg Levchenko; Baiyun Liu; Weiming Liu; Andrew Maas; Geoffrey T Manley; Paul Manson; Anna T Mazzeo; David K Menon; Daniel B Michael; Susanne Muehlschlegel; David O Okonkwo; Kee B Park; Jeffrey V Rosenfeld; Gail Rosseau; Andres M Rubiano; Hamisi K Shabani; Nino Stocchetti; Shelly D Timmons; Ivan Timofeev; Chris Uff; Jamie S Ullman; Alex Valadka; Vicknes Waran; Adam Wells; Mark H Wilson; Franco Servadei Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2019-05-28 Impact factor: 2.216
Authors: Lukas Sveikata; Lana Vasung; Amir El Rahal; Andrea Bartoli; Martin Bretzner; Karl Schaller; Armin Schnider; Béatrice Leemann Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2021-10-07 Impact factor: 2.800
Authors: Maria C De Cola; Francesco Corallo; Deborah Pria; Viviana Lo Buono; Rocco S Calabrò Journal: Brain Behav Date: 2018-10-02 Impact factor: 2.708