Complications of Cranioplasty Using Autologous Bone Graft versus Synthetic Bone Tissue following Decompressive Craniectomy for Traumatic Brain Injury
Complications of Cranioplasty ปีที่
Keywords:
cranioplasty, autologous bone graft, synthetic bone tissue, surgical site infectionAbstract
Decompressive craniectomy is the essential surgical procedure to reduce intracranial pressure and decrease mortality rate of the patients. Frontoparietotemporal craniectomy defect after wide decompressive craniectomy was replaced with cranioplasty at the proper time. The purpose of this study was to compare complication rates of cranioplasty between using autologous bone graft versus synthetic bone tissue (polymethyl methacrylate: PMMA) in decompressive craniectomy patients. This retrospective study was including skull defect patients from decompressive craniectomy in the Buddhachinaraj Phitsanulok Hospital between July, 2013 to June, 2019. Ninety-one patients were included, 31 (34.1%) patients in autologous bone graft group and 60 (65.9%) patients in synthetic bone tissue group. The overall complication rate was statistically different in autologous bone graft group (8 patients out of 31: 28.5%) compared with the synthetic bone tissue group (3 patients out of 60: 3%). There was higher rate of surgical site infection in autologous bone flap group (6 patients: 19.3%) than synthetic bone tissue group (2 patients: 3.3%), which was also statistically different. In conclusion, cranioplasty using autologous bone graft shows higher complications and rate of infection statically significant than synthetic bone tissue
References
2. Jeyaraj P. Importance of early cranioplasty in reversing the "Syndrome of the Trephine/ Motor Trephine Syndrome/Sinking Skin Flap Syndrome". J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2015;14:666-73.
3. Cho YJ, Kang SH. Review of cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy. Korean J Neurotrauma 2017;13(1):9-14.
4. Frassanito P, Fraschetti F, Bianchi F, Giovannenze F, Caldarelli M, Scoppettuolo G. Management and prevention of cranioplasty infections. Childs Nerv Syst 2019;35(9):1499-506.
5. Gooch MR, Gin GE, Kenning TJ, German JW. Complications of cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy: analysis of 62 cases. Neurosurg Focus 2009;26(6):E9.
6. Nicola A, Francesca N, Matteo M. Cranioplasty:Routine surgical procedure or risky operation?. World J Surg Res 2016;5(9):22-33.
7. Northam W, Chandran A, Adams C, Barczak-Scarboro NE, Quinsey C. Cranioplasty length of stay: Relationship with indication, surgical decision-making factors, and sex. Trauma-England 2020;22(4):256-64.
8. Morton RP, Abecassis IJ, Hanson JF, Barber J, Nerva JD, Emerson SN, et al. Predictors of infection after 754 cranioplasty operations and the value of intraoperative cultures for cryopreserved bone flaps. J Neurosurg 2016;125(3):766-70.
9. Kim SH, Kang DS, Cheong JH, Kim JH, Song KY, Kong MH. Comparison of complications following cranioplasty using a sterilized autologous bone flap or polymethyl methacrylate. Korean J Neurotrauma 2017;13(1):15-23.
10. Zanaty M, Chalouhi N, Starke RM, Chitale R, Hann S, Bovenzi CD, et al. Predictors of infections following cranioplasty: a retrospective review of a large single center study. Scientific World J 2014; doi:10.1155/2014/356042.
11. Asano Y, Ryuke Y, Hasuo M, Simosawa S. Cranioplasty using cryopreserved autogenous bone. No To Shinkei 1993;45(12):1145-50.
12. Sundseth J, Sundseth A, Berg-Johnsen J, Sorteberg W, Lindegaard KF. Cranioplasty with autologous cryopreserved bone after decompressive craniectomy: complications and risk factors for developing surgical site infection. Acta Neurochir(Wien) 2014;156(4):805-11
13. Lemee JM, Petit D, Splingard M, Menei P. Autologous bone flap versus hydroxyapatite prosthesis in first intention in secondary cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy:a French medico-economical study. Neurochirurgie 2013;59(2):60-3.
14. Brommeland T, Rydning PN, Pripp AH, Helseth E. Cranioplasty complications and risk factors associated with bone flap resorption. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2015;23(75):1-7.
15. Worm PV, do Nascimento TL, do Couto Nicola F, Sanches EF, Dos Santos Moreira CF, Rogerio LP, et al. Polymethyl methacrylate imbedded with antibiotics cranioplasty: An infection solution for moderate and large defects reconstruction? Surg Neurol Int 2016;7(Suppl 28): S746-S51.
16. Basheer N, Gupta D, Mahapatra AK, Gurjar H. Cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy in traumatic brain injury: Experience at Level-I apex trauma centre. Indian J Neurotrauma (IJNT) 2010;7(10):139-44.
17. Singh S, Singh R, Jain K, Walia B. Cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy-Analysis of complication rates and neurological outcomes: A single center study. Surg Neurol Int 2019;10(142): 1-7.
18. Goedemans T, Verbaan D, van der Veer O, Bot M, Post R, Hoogmoed J, et al. Complications in cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy: timing of the intervention. J Neurol 2020;267(5):1312-20.
19. Sarsima S. Autologous graft and acrylate cranioplasty in skull defect patient in Yasothon Hospital. Reg 11 Med J 2014;28(3):643-8.
20. Heo J, Park SQ, Cho SJ, Chang JC, Park HK. Evaluation of simultaneous cranioplasty and ventriculoperitoneal shunt procedures. J Neurosurg 2014;121(2):313-8.
21. Posti JP, Yli-Olli M, Heiskanen L, Aitasalo KMJ, Rinne J, Vuorinen V, et al. Cranioplasty after severe traumatic brain injury: effects of trauma and patient recovery on cranioplasty outcome. Front Neurol 2018;9(223):1-7.
22. Cheng CH, Lee HC, Chen CC, Cho DY, Lin HL. Cryopreservation versus subcutaneous preservation of autologous bone flaps for cranioplasty: comparison of the surgical site infection and bone resorption rates. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2014;124:85-9.
