A case series of early and late cranioplasty-comparison of surgical outcomes.
Adult
Decompressive Craniectomy
/ adverse effects
Female
Humans
Hydrocephalus
/ epidemiology
Length of Stay
/ statistics & numerical data
Male
Middle Aged
Pneumocephalus
/ epidemiology
Postoperative Complications
/ epidemiology
Plastic Surgery Procedures
/ adverse effects
Retrospective Studies
Skull
/ surgery
Surgical Wound Infection
/ epidemiology
Complications
Cranial reconstruction
Craniectomy
Neurosurgery
Journal
Acta neurochirurgica
ISSN: 0942-0940
Titre abrégé: Acta Neurochir (Wien)
Pays: Austria
ID NLM: 0151000
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2019
03 2019
Historique:
received:
08
11
2018
accepted:
23
01
2019
pubmed:
5
2
2019
medline:
24
1
2020
entrez:
5
2
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Cranioplasty is an increasingly common procedure performed in neurosurgical centres following a decompressive craniectomy (DC), however, timing of the procedure varies greatly. The aim of this study is to compare the surgical outcomes of an early compared to a late cranioplasty procedure. Ninety adult patients who underwent a prosthetic cranioplasty between 2014 and 2017 were studied retrospectively. Timing of operation, perioperative complications and length of stay were assessed. Early and late cranioplasties were defined as less or more than 3 months since craniectomy respectively. Of the 90 patients, 73% received a late cranioplasty and 27% received an early cranioplasty. The median interval between craniectomy and cranioplasty was 13 months [range 3-84] in late group versus 54 days [range 33-90] in early group. Twenty-two patients in the early group (91%) received a cranioplasty during the original admission while undergoing rehabilitation. Complications were seen in 25 patients (28%). These included wound or cranioplasty infection, hydrocephalus, symptomatic pneumocephalus, post-operative haematoma and cosmetic issues. The complication rate was 21% in the early group and 30% in the late group (P value 0.46). There was no significant difference in the rate of infection or hydrocephalus between the two groups. Length of stay was not significantly increased in patients who received an early cranioplasty during their initial admission (median length of stay 77 days versus 63 days, P value 0.28). We have demonstrated the potential for early cranioplasty to be a safe and viable option, when compared to delayed cranioplasty.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Cranioplasty is an increasingly common procedure performed in neurosurgical centres following a decompressive craniectomy (DC), however, timing of the procedure varies greatly.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study is to compare the surgical outcomes of an early compared to a late cranioplasty procedure.
METHODS
Ninety adult patients who underwent a prosthetic cranioplasty between 2014 and 2017 were studied retrospectively. Timing of operation, perioperative complications and length of stay were assessed. Early and late cranioplasties were defined as less or more than 3 months since craniectomy respectively.
RESULTS
Of the 90 patients, 73% received a late cranioplasty and 27% received an early cranioplasty. The median interval between craniectomy and cranioplasty was 13 months [range 3-84] in late group versus 54 days [range 33-90] in early group. Twenty-two patients in the early group (91%) received a cranioplasty during the original admission while undergoing rehabilitation. Complications were seen in 25 patients (28%). These included wound or cranioplasty infection, hydrocephalus, symptomatic pneumocephalus, post-operative haematoma and cosmetic issues. The complication rate was 21% in the early group and 30% in the late group (P value 0.46). There was no significant difference in the rate of infection or hydrocephalus between the two groups. Length of stay was not significantly increased in patients who received an early cranioplasty during their initial admission (median length of stay 77 days versus 63 days, P value 0.28).
CONCLUSION
We have demonstrated the potential for early cranioplasty to be a safe and viable option, when compared to delayed cranioplasty.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30715606
doi: 10.1007/s00701-019-03820-9
pii: 10.1007/s00701-019-03820-9
pmc: PMC6407742
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
467-472Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : II-C5-0715-20005
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 12/35/57
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : G1002277
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : HTA/13/15/02
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : NIHR-RP-R3-12-013
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : G0502030
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : G9439390
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : G0601025
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : G0600986
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Neurocrit Care. 2012 Jun;16(3):478-84
pubmed: 22396191
Br J Neurosurg. 2013 Oct;27(5):636-41
pubmed: 23883370
World Neurosurg. 2016 Aug;92:83-88
pubmed: 27157285
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2012 Jun;154(6):1055-62
pubmed: 22527574
J Craniofac Surg. 2018 Jun;29(4):887-894
pubmed: 29489570
World Neurosurg. 2015 Feb;83(2):133-5
pubmed: 25153284
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2015 Sep;136:33-40
pubmed: 26056810
Stroke. 2007 Sep;38(9):2518-25
pubmed: 17690310
World Neurosurg. 2016 Oct;94:13-17
pubmed: 27368511
Korean J Neurotrauma. 2017 Oct;13(2):113-118
pubmed: 29201844
Neurosurgery. 2018 Mar 1;82(3):278-288
pubmed: 28419358
J Craniofac Surg. 2011 Jan;22(1):203-7
pubmed: 21233757
Nervenarzt. 2012 Jun;83(6):751-8
pubmed: 22215218
N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 22;375(12):1119-30
pubmed: 27602507
Neurosurgery. 2011 Apr;68(4):1124-9; discussion 1130
pubmed: 21242830
Nat Rev Neurol. 2013 Jul;9(7):405-15
pubmed: 23752906
World Neurosurg. 2018 Feb;110:e160-e167
pubmed: 29101076
Neurocrit Care. 2012 Oct;17(2):161-71
pubmed: 22528280
Neurosurgery. 2017 Aug 1;81(2):204-216
pubmed: 28368505
J Clin Neurosci. 2016 Nov;33:39-51
pubmed: 27499122
J Neurosurg. 2018 Jun;128(6):1648-1652
pubmed: 28799868
Stroke. 2007 Sep;38(9):2506-17
pubmed: 17690311
Lancet Neurol. 2009 Apr;8(4):326-33
pubmed: 19269254
Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2017 Apr;28(2):257-265
pubmed: 28325460
J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2012 Oct;52(4):396-403
pubmed: 23133731
J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2016 Sep;59(5):492-7
pubmed: 27651868
Neurosurgery. 2016 Oct;79(4):525-34
pubmed: 27489166
Neurosurgery. 2014 Feb;74 Suppl 1:S151-62
pubmed: 24402484
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2014 Jan;156(1):193-8
pubmed: 24150188