Literature DB >> 32330877

An altered posterior question-mark incision is associated with a reduced infection rate of cranioplasty after decompressive hemicraniectomy.

Michael Veldeman1, Lorina Daleiden1,2, Hussam Hamou1, Anke Höllig1, Hans Clusmann1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Performing a cranioplasty (CP) after decompressive craniotomy is a straightforward neurosurgical procedure, but it remains associated with a high complication rate. Surgical site infection (SSI), aseptic bone resorption (aBR), and need for a secondary CP are the most common complications. This observational study aimed to identify modifiable risk factors to prevent CP failure.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of all patients who underwent CP following decompressive hemicraniectomy (DHC) between 2010 and 2018 at a single institution. Predictors of SSI, aBR, and need for allograft CP were evaluated in a univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression model.
RESULTS: One hundred eighty-six patients treated with CP after DHC were included. The diagnoses leading to a DHC were as follows: stroke (83 patients, 44.6%), traumatic brain injury (55 patients, 29.6%), subarachnoid hemorrhage (33 patients, 17.7%), and intracerebral hemorrhage (15 patients, 8.1%). Post-CP SSI occurred in 25 patients (13.4%), whereas aBR occurred in 32 cases (17.2%). An altered posterior question-mark incision, ending behind the ear, was associated with a significantly lower infection rate and CP failure, compared to the classic question-mark incision (6.3% vs 18.4%; p = 0.021). The only significant predictor of aBR was patient age, in which those developing resorption were on average 16 years younger than those without aBR (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The primary goal of this retrospective cohort analysis was to identify adjustable risk factors to prevent post-CP complications. In this analysis, a posterior question-mark incision proved beneficial regarding infection and CP failure. The authors believe that these findings are caused by the better vascularized skin flap due to preservation of the superficial temporal artery and partial preservation of the occipital artery. In this trial, the posterior question-mark incision was identified as an easily and costless adaptable technique to reduce CP failure rates.

Entities:  

Keywords:  aseptic bone resorption; complications; cranioplasty; decompressive hemicraniectomy; osteonecrosis; surgical site infection; surgical technique; wound infection

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32330877     DOI: 10.3171/2020.2.JNS193335

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg        ISSN: 0022-3085            Impact factor:   5.115


  5 in total

1.  The reverse question mark and L.G. Kempe incisions for decompressive craniectomy: A case series and narrative review of the literature.

Authors:  Edgar G Ordóñez-Rubiano; Luisa F Figueredo; Carlos A Gamboa-Oñate; Ivo Kehayov; Jorge A Rengifo-Hipus; Ingrid J Romero-Castillo; Angie P Rodríguez-Medina; Javier G Patiño-Gomez; Oscar Zorro
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2022-07-08

2.  How I do it-the posterior question mark incision for decompressive hemicraniectomy.

Authors:  Michael Veldeman; Mathias Geiger; Hans Clusmann
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 2.216

3.  Response to the letter to the editor "The posterior question mark incision for decompressive hemicraniectomy".

Authors:  Michael Veldeman
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  2022-05-02       Impact factor: 2.816

4.  Tissue Healing in Hemicraniectomy.

Authors:  Ntenis Nerntengian; Tammam Abboud; Adam Stepniewski; Gunther Felmerer; Veit Rohde; Levent Tanrikulu
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-09-17

5.  Outcome and risk factors of complications after cranioplasty with polyetheretherketone and titanium mesh: A single-center retrospective study.

Authors:  Shun Yao; Qiyu Zhang; Yiying Mai; Hongyi Yang; Yilin Li; Minglin Zhang; Run Zhang
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2022-09-21       Impact factor: 4.086

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.