Literature DB >> 29753896

Autologous Cranioplasty is Associated with Increased Reoperation Rate: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

James G Malcolm1, Zayan Mahmooth1, Rima S Rindler1, Jason W Allen2, Jonathan A Grossberg1, Gustavo Pradilla1, Faiz U Ahmad3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Consensus regarding selection of synthetic versus autologous flap reimplantation for cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy has not been reached and the multiple factors considered for each patient make comparative analysis challenging. This study examines the association between choice of material and related complications.
METHODS: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were performed using PubMed for articles reporting delayed cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy using a cohort design comparing autologous bone and synthetic implants. Extracted data included implant material and incidence of infection, reoperations related to implant, wound complications, and resorption.
RESULTS: One randomized controlled trial and 11 cohort studies were included for a total of 1586 implants (950 bone, 636 synthetic). Autologous implants had significantly more reoperations than did synthetic implants (n = 1586 implants; odds ratio [OR], 1.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.40-2.61). Reoperations were most often because of resorption (54%, n = 159/295) followed by infection (41%, n = 121/295). The pooled incidence of resorption in autologous implants was 20% (n = 159/791). Among the other outcomes, there was no significant difference for infections (n = 1586; OR, 1.24; CI, 0.82-1.88) or wound complications (n = 678; OR, 0.56; CI, 0.22-1.45). For the trauma subpopulation, there was no significant difference in infection rate with either material (n = 197; OR, 1.89; CI; 0.59-6.09).
CONCLUSIONS: Autologous implants had significantly more reoperations primarily because if the intrinsic risk of resorption (level of evidence 3b).
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Complication; Cranioplasty; Infection; Material; Reoperation; Resorption; Synthetic

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29753896     DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.05.009

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


  21 in total

1.  Management and prevention of cranioplasty infections.

Authors:  Paolo Frassanito; Flavia Fraschetti; Federico Bianchi; Francesca Giovannenze; Massimo Caldarelli; Giancarlo Scoppettuolo
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2019-06-20       Impact factor: 1.475

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.  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

Review 4.  Characterisation of Selected Materials in Medical Applications.

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

Review 5.  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 6.  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

7.  Time to define what is pediatric in cranial reconstruction.

Authors:  Ismail Zaed; Franco Servadei
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2020-10-30       Impact factor: 1.532

8.  Safety, Feasibility, and Patient-Rated Outcome of Sonolucent Cranioplasty in Extracranial-Intracranial Bypass Surgery to Allow for Transcranioplasty Ultrasound Assessment.

Authors:  Alex R Flores; Visish M Srinivasan; Jill Seeley; Charity Huggins; Peter Kan; Jan-Karl Burkhardt
Journal:  World Neurosurg       Date:  2020-08-20       Impact factor: 2.104

Review 9.  Cranioplasty Following Decompressive Craniectomy.

Authors:  Corrado Iaccarino; Angelos G Kolias; Louis-Georges Roumy; Kostas Fountas; Amos Olufemi Adeleye
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2020-01-29       Impact factor: 4.003

10.  Evaluation of titanium cranioplasty and polyetheretherketone cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy for traumatic brain injury: A prospective, multicenter, non-randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Jingguo Yang; Tong Sun; Yikai Yuan; Xuepei Li; Hang Yu; Junwen Guan
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-07-24       Impact factor: 1.817

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.