Literature DB >> 31351936

Autologous Bone Cranioplasty: A Retrospective Comparative Analysis of Frozen and Subcutaneous Bone Flap Storage Methods.

Clayton L Rosinski1, Anisse N Chaker1, Jack Zakrzewski1, Brett Geever1, Saavan Patel1, Ryan G Chiu1, David M Rosenberg1, Rown Parola1, Koral Shah1, Mandana Behbahani1, Ankit I Mehta2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The use of autologous bone for cranioplasty offers superior cosmesis and cost-effectiveness compared with synthetic materials. The choice between 2 common autograft storage mechanisms (subcutaneous vs. frozen) remains controversial and dictated by surgeon preference. We compared surgical outcomes after autologous bone cranioplasty between patients with cryopreserved and subcutaneously stored autografts.
METHODS: Ten-year retrospective comparative analysis of patients undergoing cranioplasty with autologous bone stored subcutaneously or frozen at a tertiary academic medical center.
RESULTS: Ninety-four patients were studied, with 34 (36.2%) bone flaps stored subcutaneously and 59 (62.8%) frozen. The 2 groups were similar in demographics, comorbidities, and craniectomy indication, with only body mass index and race differing statistically. The mean operation time was greater within the subcutaneous group (P < 0.001), which also had a greater number of ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) placements (P = 0.02). There were no significant differences in complications, readmissions, unplanned reoperations, or length of stay between the 2 groups. VPS placement during cranioplasty increased length of stay (P < 0.001), and placement prior to cranioplasty increased both length of stay (P = 0.009) and incidence of hospital-acquired infection (P = 0.03).
CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous and frozen storage of autologous bone result in similar surgical risk profiles. Cryopreservation may be preferred because of shorter operation time and avoidance of complications with the abdominal pocket, whereas the portability of subcutaneous storage remains favorable for patients undergoing cranioplasty at a different institution. VPS placement prior to cranioplasty should be avoided, if possible, due to the increased risk of hospital-acquired infection.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Autologous bone; Cranioplasty; Frozen; Infection; Subcutaneous

Year:  2019        PMID: 31351936     DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.07.139

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


  4 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

Review 2.  Nanoparticles and Nanostructured Surface Fabrication for Innovative Cranial and Maxillofacial Surgery.

Authors:  Simona Cavalu; Iulian Vasile Antoniac; Aurel Mohan; Florian Bodog; Cristian Doicin; Ileana Mates; Mihaela Ulmeanu; Roman Murzac; Augustin Semenescu
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2020-11-27       Impact factor: 3.623

Review 3.  Immunopathogenesis of Craniotomy Infection and Niche-Specific Immune Responses to Biofilm.

Authors:  Sharon Db de Morais; Gunjan Kak; Joseph P Menousek; Tammy Kielian
Journal:  Front Immunol       Date:  2021-02-23       Impact factor: 7.561

4.  Risk factors for bone flap resorption after autologous bone cranioplasty: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jingguo Yang; Tong Sun; Yikai Yuan; Xuepei Li; Yicheng Zhou; Junwen Guan
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-07-10       Impact factor: 1.817

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.