Literature DB >> 29107719

Cryopreservation of Autologous Cranial Bone Flaps for Cranioplasty: A Large Sample Retrospective Study.

Ming-Chao Fan1, Qiao-Ling Wang2, Peng Sun3, Shu-Hua Zhan4, Pin Guo4, Wen-Shuai Deng1, Qian Dong5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To clarify the clinical outcomes of cranioplasty with cryopreserved bone flaps and identify risk factors related to bone flap infection and resorption after cranioplasty with cryopreserved bone flaps.
METHODS: A total of 946 patients (989 bone flaps) underwent decompressive craniectomy and delayed cranioplasty via the use of cryopreserved autogenous cranial bone flaps. Cranial bone flaps were removed during the initial craniectomy and reserved in liquid nitrogen (-196°C) with dimethyl sulfoxide as a cryoprotectant. Cranioplasty subsequently was performed once the brain injury had healed. Data regarding complications and clinical outcomes were recorded and the potential risk factors were analyzed.
RESULTS: Data from 960 flaps were available for analysis. The overall complication rate was 15.83% (152 of 960). Bone resorption occurred in 42 flaps in 37 patients (4.38%). The bone flaps resorption rate was greater in patients ≤18 years than in patients >18 years (9.38% vs. 3.61%, P < 0.05). Cryopreservation for more than 365 days tended to result in a greater bone resorption rate (6.88% vs. 2.92%, P < 0.01). Skull bone grafts infection occurred in 39 flaps in 34 patients (4.06%). The bone graft infection rate was greater in emergency craniectomy cases (8.81% vs. 2.59%, P < 0.01) and in patients with diabetes (10.53% vs. 3.07%, P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Cryopreservation of autologous cranial bone flaps is safe and effective for cranioplasty. Cranioplasty with cryopreserved autologous cranial bone flaps should be performed no more than 1 year after craniectomy. Emergency craniectomy and patients with diabetes require special attention.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Autogenous bone graft; Bone infection; Cranioplasty; Cryopreservation; Skull defect

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29107719     DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.10.112

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


  9 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.  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

Review 3.  Cryopreservation of Animals and Cryonics: Current Technical Progress, Difficulties and Possible Research Directions.

Authors:  Marlene Davis Ekpo; George Frimpong Boafo; Suleiman Shafiu Gambo; Yuying Hu; Xiangjian Liu; Jingxian Xie; Songwen Tan
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2022-06-09

Review 4.  Bone Flap Resorption in Pediatric Patients Following Autologous Cranioplasty.

Authors:  David S Hersh; Hanna J Anderson; Graeme F Woodworth; Jonathan E Martin; Yusuf M Khan
Journal:  Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown)       Date:  2021-04-15       Impact factor: 2.703

Review 5.  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

6.  Vitrification and storage of oral mucosa epithelial cell sheets.

Authors:  Joan Oliva; Arjie Florentino; Fawzia Bardag-Gorce; Yutaka Niihara
Journal:  J Tissue Eng Regen Med       Date:  2019-05-21       Impact factor: 3.963

7.  Injectable Magnesium-Zinc Alloy Containing Hydrogel Complex for Bone Regeneration.

Authors:  Wei-Hua Wang; Fei Wang; Hai-Feng Zhao; Ke Yan; Cui-Ling Huang; Yin Yin; Qiang Huang; Zao-Zao Chen; Wen-Yu Zhu
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2020-11-26

8.  In situ bone regeneration of large cranial defects using synthetic ceramic implants with a tailored composition and design.

Authors:  Omar Omar; Thomas Engstrand; Lars Kihlström Burenstam Linder; Jonas Åberg; Furqan A Shah; Anders Palmquist; Ulrik Birgersson; Ibrahim Elgali; Michael Pujari-Palmer; Håkan Engqvist; Peter Thomsen
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-10-12       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 9.  A Narrative Review of Cell-Based Approaches for Cranial Bone Regeneration.

Authors:  Maria I Falguera Uceda; Silvia Sánchez-Casanova; Clara Escudero-Duch; Nuria Vilaboa
Journal:  Pharmaceutics       Date:  2022-01-05       Impact factor: 6.321

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.