Literature DB >> 32592100

Timing of cranial reconstruction after cranioplasty infections: are we ready for a re-thinking? A comparative analysis of delayed versus immediate cranioplasty after debridement in a series of 48 patients.

Alessandro Di Rienzo1, Roberto Colasanti2,3, Maurizio Gladi1, Mauro Dobran1, Martina Della Costanza1, Mara Capece1, Salvatore Veccia4, Maurizio Iacoangeli1.   

Abstract

The optimal management of cranioplasty infections remains a matter of debate. Most authors have suggested that the infected bone/implant removal is mandatory, combined with prolonged antibiotic therapy before reconstruction. However, failures can occur, even with 12-18-month intervals between the surgeries. Longer wait times before cranial reconstruction increase the risks of socioeconomic burdens and further complications, as observed in decompressed patients hosting shunts. In our department, we treated 48 cranioplasty infections over a period of 8 years, divided into two groups. For Group A (n = 26), the treatment consisted of cranioplasty removal and debridement, followed by a delayed reconstruction. Group B (n = 22) received 2 weeks of broad-spectrum antibiotics, followed by an "aggressive" field debridement and immediate cranioplasty. All patients received a minimum of 8 weeks of post-operative antibiotic therapy and were scheduled for clinic-radiological follow-ups for at least 36 months. Significant differences were observed between Groups A and B with respect to the number of failures (respectively 7 versus 1), the global operative time (significantly longer for Group B), germ identification (respectively 7 versus 13), and the overall length of hospital stay (on average, 61.04 days in Group A versus 47.41 days in Group B). Three shunted patients in Group A developed sinking flap syndrome. Shunt resetting allowed symptom control until cranioplasty in one subject, whereas two did not improve, even after reconstruction. In selected patients, an aggressive field debridement, followed by the immediate replacement of an infected cranioplasty, may represent a safe and valuable option.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cranioplasty; Hydrocephalus; Infection; PMMA; Shunt; Titanium mesh

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32592100     DOI: 10.1007/s10143-020-01341-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurg Rev        ISSN: 0344-5607            Impact factor:   3.042


  16 in total

1.  Latissimus Dorsi-Myocutaneous Flap in the Repair of Titanium Mesh Exposure and Scalp Defect After Cranioplasty.

Authors:  Liwei Dong; Yulin Dong; Chaohua Liu; Jian Geng; Hengxin Liu; Jiaomiao Pei; Dongyue Hao; Xianjie Ma; Wensen Xia
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2020 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 1.046

2.  Reconstructive approach to hostile cranioplasty: A review of the University of Chicago experience.

Authors:  Abigail J Fong; Benjamin T Lemelman; Sandi Lam; Grant M Kleiber; Russell R Reid; Lawrence J Gottlieb
Journal:  J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg       Date:  2015-04-29       Impact factor: 2.740

3.  Salvage of infected craniotomy bone flaps with the wash-in, wash-out indwelling antibiotic irrigation system. Technical note and case series of 12 patients.

Authors:  Kurtis I Auguste; Michael W McDermott
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 5.115

4.  Primary wire mesh cranioplasty in flap infections.

Authors:  M Koslow; J Ransohoff
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  1979-04       Impact factor: 4.654

5.  Conservative Treatment for Delayed Infection After Cranioplasty With Titanium Alloy.

Authors:  Yuanwei Hu; Xiang Li; Ruirui Zhao; Kang Zhang
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 1.046

6.  Septic complication following porous hydroxyapatite cranioplasty: prosthesis retention management.

Authors:  Corrado Iaccarino; Pier P Mattogno; Bruno Zanotti; Silvio Bellocchi; Angela Verlicchi; Edoardo Viaroli; Giulia Pastorello; Francesco Sgulò; Reza Ghadirpour; Franco Servadei
Journal:  J Neurosurg Sci       Date:  2016-05-13       Impact factor: 2.279

7.  Immediate Titanium Mesh Implantation for Patients with Postcraniotomy Neurosurgical Site Infections: Safe and Aesthetic Alternative Procedure?

Authors:  Gregory Ehrlich; Stefanie Kindling; Holger Wenz; Daniel Hänggi; Dirk Michael Schulte; Peter Schmiedek; Marcel Seiz-Rosenhagen
Journal:  World Neurosurg       Date:  2016-12-18       Impact factor: 2.104

8.  Preservation of bone flaps in patients with postcraniotomy infections.

Authors:  Jeffrey N Bruce; Samuel S Bruce
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 5.115

9.  Negative Pressure Wound Therapy With Chymotrypsin Irrigation: A Maximal Implant Retention Procedure Treating the Exposure/Infection of Titanium Mesh in Cranioplasty.

Authors:  Zugen Huang; Chen Lei; Ling Zhang; Huadong Xue; Jian Shen; Shanying Wu; Biao Wang; Jianwu Chen
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2020 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 1.046

10.  Salvage of an exposed cranial prosthetic implant using a transposition flap with an indwelling antibiotic irrigation system.

Authors:  Sung Oh Hwang; Lan Sook Chang
Journal:  Arch Craniofac Surg       Date:  2020-02-20
View more
  2 in total

1.  [Application of two-stage operation on free latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap transplantation and skull contour reconstruction in treatment of head titanium mesh exposure with soft tissue infection].

Authors:  Xin Liu; Yudi Han; Lei Cui; Jun Shu; Lingli Guo; Ran Tao; Yonghong Lei; Yan Han
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2022-07-15

2.  Management of infected hydroxyapatite cranioplasty: Is salvage feasible?

Authors:  Alessandro Di Rienzo; Roberto Colasanti; Mauro Dobran; Francesco Formica; Martina Della Costanza; Erika Carrassi; Denis Aiudi; Maurizio Iacoangeli
Journal:  Brain Spine       Date:  2022-06-21
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.