Literature DB >> 450211

Autogenous skull cranioplasty: fresh and preserved (frozen), with consideration of the cellular response.

D J Prolo, K P Burres, W T McLaughlin, A H Christensen.   

Abstract

Every craniotomy requires immediate replacement of a fresh autograft of skull or, in the presence of cerebral swelling, delayed reimplantation of preserved autogenous skull. Resumption of osteogenesis, the index of viability, determines the effectiveness of these segments of calvaria in protecting the brain and restoring skull conformity. The cellular response in skull replaced either at the end of craniotomy or after frozen preservation was studied by light and fluorescence microscopy, skull roentgenograms, and radionuclide scintigraphy. In 5 patients eventual total remodeling of skull was found at the time of a second craniotomy performed from 1 to 19 years after the first. In 12 patients skull sections removed aseptically at craniotomy were frozen and stored for 1 to 35 months at -20 degrees C in bacitracin. This cytotoxic preservative method fixed the tissue, which appeared unchanged on light microscopy and was sterile on bacteriological and fungal cultures. In 53 patients who underwent autogenous cranioplasty with skull stored frozen for 3 weeks to 19 months, 48 operations were totally successful. Complications included infections in 2 patients, resorption in 2 infants, and incomplete restoration in 1 adult. In 10 patients the sequential dynamics of skull revitalization were found to be: revascularization, resorption, and accretion. The repair of membranous skull is similar to that of endochondral bone of the skeleton. Skull is metabolically intensely active after reimplantation and is the ideal material for cranioplasty.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1979        PMID: 450211     DOI: 10.1227/00006123-197901000-00005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurgery        ISSN: 0148-396X            Impact factor:   4.654


  19 in total

1.  Cranioplasty with a frozen and autoclaved bone flap.

Authors:  M Osawa; H Hara; Y Ichinose; T Koyama; S Kobayashi; Y Sugita
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 2.216

Review 2.  Current Concepts in Restoring Acquired Cranial Defects.

Authors:  K V Arun Kumar; N K Singla; Mahesh E Gowda; Dinesh Kumar; V S Legha
Journal:  J Indian Prosthodont Soc       Date:  2014-06-05

Review 3.  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

4.  Completely resorption of autologous skull flap after orthotopic transplantation: a case report.

Authors:  Jiangliu Yin; Yugang Jiang
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2014-04-15

5.  Split Calvarial Grafting for Closure of Large Cranial Defects: The Ideal Option?

Authors:  Priya Jeyaraj
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2019-02-09

6.  There are No Differences between Factors Determining Graft Infection in Autologous Bone Flap Replacement and Acrylic Cranioplasty: A Prospective Observational Study at Hospital Kuala Lumpur.

Authors:  Siti Azleen Mohamad; Mohd Safari Mohd Haspani; Badrisyah Idris
Journal:  Malays J Med Sci       Date:  2016-10-05

7.  The reaction of the dura to bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) in repair of skull defects.

Authors:  K Takagi; M R Urist
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1982-07       Impact factor: 12.969

8.  Survival of split calvarial bone grafts in a dog model.

Authors:  R Abbott; J P Laurent; D Judge; W R Cheek
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 1.475

9.  Delayed Cranioplasty: Outcomes Using Frozen Autologous Bone Flaps.

Authors:  Daniel Hng; Ivan Bhaskar; Mumtaz Khan; Charley Budgeon; Omprakash Damodaran; Neville Knuckey; Gabriel Lee
Journal:  Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr       Date:  2014-12-17

10.  Immune inhibition of repair of canine skull trephine defects implanted with partially purified bovine morphogenetic protein.

Authors:  O S Nilsson; M R Urist
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 3.075

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.