Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society

The Korean Neurosurgical Society (대한신경외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Which One Is Better to Reduce the Infection Rate, Early or Late Cranioplasty?

  • Oh, Jae-Sang (Department of Neurosurgery, Soonchunhyang University Cheonan Hospital) ;
  • Lee, Kyeong-Seok (Department of Neurosurgery, Soonchunhyang University Cheonan Hospital) ;
  • Shim, Jai-Joon (Department of Neurosurgery, Soonchunhyang University Cheonan Hospital) ;
  • Yoon, Seok-Mann (Department of Neurosurgery, Soonchunhyang University Cheonan Hospital) ;
  • Doh, Jae-Won (Department of Neurosurgery, Soonchunhyang University Cheonan Hospital) ;
  • Bae, Hack-Gun (Department of Neurosurgery, Soonchunhyang University Cheonan Hospital)
  • Received : 2016.01.26
  • Accepted : 2016.04.03
  • Published : 2016.09.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective : Decompressive craniectomy is an effective therapy to relieve high intracranial pressure after acute brain damage. However, the optimal timing for cranioplasty after decompression is still controversial. Many authors reported that early cranioplasty may contribute to improve the cerebral blood flow and brain metabolism. However, despite all the advantages, there always remains a concern that early cranioplasty may increase the chance of infection. The purpose of this retrospective study is to investigate whether the early cranioplasty increase the infection rate. We also evaluated the risk factors of infection following cranioplasty. Methods : We retrospectively examined the results of 131 patients who underwent cranioplasty in our institution between January 2008 and June 2015. We divided them into early (${\leq}90days$) and late (>90 days after craniectomy) groups. We examined the risk factors of infection after cranioplasty. We analyzed the infection rate between two groups. Results : There were more male patients (62%) than female (38%). The mean age was 49 years. Infection occurred in 17 patients (13%) after cranioplasty. The infection rate of early cranioplasty was lower than that of late cranioplasty (7% vs. 20%; p=0.02). Early cranioplasty, non-metal allograft materials, re-operation before cranioplasty and younger age were the significant factors in the infection rate after cranioplasty (p<0.05). Especially allograft was a significant risk factor of infection (odds ratio, 12.4; 95% confidence interval, 3.24-47.33; p<0.01). Younger age was also a significant risk factor of infection after cranioplasty by multivariable analysis (odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-0.99; p=0.02). Conclusion : Early cranioplasty did not increase the infection rate in this study. The use of non-metal allograft materials influenced a more important role in infection in cranioplasty. Actually, timing itself was not a significant risk factor in multivariate analysis. So the early cranioplasty may bring better outcomes in cognitive functions or wound without raising the infection rate.

Keywords

References

  1. Acikgoz B, Ozcan OE, Erbengi A, Bertan V, Ruacan S, Acikgoz HG : Histopathologic and microdensitometric analysis of craniotomy bone flaps preserved between abdominal fat and muscle. Surg Neurol 26 : 557-561, 1986 https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-3019(86)90339-3
  2. Adamo MA, Deshaies EM : Emergency decompressive craniectomy for fulminating infectious encephalitis. J Neurosurg 108 : 174-176, 2008 https://doi.org/10.3171/JNS/2008/108/01/0174
  3. Agner C, Dujovny M, Gaviria M : Neurocognitive assessment before and after cranioplasty. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 144 : 1033-1040; discussion 1040, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-002-0996-4
  4. Bijlenga P, Zumofen D, Yilmaz H, Creisson E, de Tribolet N : Orthostatic mesodiencephalic dysfunction after decompressive craniectomy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 78 : 430-433, 2007
  5. Blum KS, Schneider SJ, Rosenthal AD : Methyl methacrylate cranioplasty in children : long-term results. Pediatr Neurosurg 26 : 33-35, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1159/000121158
  6. Broughton E, Pobereskin L, Whitfield PC : Seven years of cranioplasty in a regional neurosurgical centre. Br J Neurosurg 28 : 34-39, 2014 https://doi.org/10.3109/02688697.2013.815319
  7. Chang V, Hartzfeld P, Langlois M, Mahmood A, Seyfried D : Outcomes of cranial repair after craniectomy. J Neurosurg 112 : 1120-1124, 2010 https://doi.org/10.3171/2009.6.JNS09133
  8. Costantino PD, Chaplin JM, Wolpoe ME, Catalano PJ, Sen C, Bederson JB, et al. : Applications of fast-setting hydroxyapatite cement : cranioplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 123 : 409-412, 2000 https://doi.org/10.1067/mhn.2000.107679
  9. Dujovny M, Fernandez P, Alperin N, Betz W, Misra M, Mafee M : Postcranioplasty cerebrospinal fluid hydrodynamic changes : magnetic resonance imaging quantitative analysis. Neurol Res 19 : 311-316, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1080/01616412.1997.11740818
  10. Erman T, Demirhindi H, Gocer AI, Tuna M, Ildan F, Boyar B : Risk factors for surgical site infections in neurosurgery patients with antibiotic prophylaxis. Surg Neurol 63 : 107-112; discussion 112-113, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surneu.2004.04.024
  11. Eufinger H, Wehmoller M : Individual prefabricated titanium implants in reconstructive craniofacial surgery : clinical and technical aspects of the first 22 cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 102 : 300-308, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199808000-00002
  12. Fodstad H, Love JA, Ekstedt J, Friden H, Liliequist B : Effect of cranioplasty on cerebrospinal fluid hydrodynamics in patients with the syndrome of the trephined. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 70 : 21-30, 1984 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01406039
  13. Friedman CD, Costantino PD, Synderman CH, Chow LC, Takagi S : Reconstruction of the frontal sinus and frontofacial skeleton with hydroxyapatite cement. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2 : 124-129, 2000 https://doi.org/10.1001/archfaci.2.2.124
  14. Fu TS, Jing R, McFaull SR, Cusimano MD : Recent trends in hospitalization and in-hospital mortality associated with traumatic brain injury in Canada : a nationwide, population-based study. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 79 : 449-454, 2015 https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000000733
  15. Gladstone HB, McDermott MW, Cooke DD : Implants for cranioplasty. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 28 : 381-400, 1995
  16. Im SH, Jang DK, Han YM, Kim JT, Chung DS, Park YS : Long-term incidence and predicting factors of cranioplasty infection after decompressive craniectomy. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 52 : 396-403, 2012 https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2012.52.4.396
  17. Jho DH, Neckrysh S, Hardman J, Charbel FT, Amin-Hanjani S : Ethylene oxide gas sterilization : a simple technique for storing explanted skull bone. Technical note. J Neurosurg 107 : 440-445, 2007 https://doi.org/10.3171/JNS-07/08/0440
  18. Joffe J, Harris M, Kahugu F, Nicoll S, Linney A, Richards R : A prospective study of computer-aided design and manufacture of titanium plate for cranioplasty and its clinical outcome. Br J Neurosurg 13 : 576-580, 1999 https://doi.org/10.1080/02688699943088
  19. Klinger DR, Madden C, Beshay J, White J, Gambrell K, Rickert K : Autologous and acrylic cranioplast : a review of 10 years and 258 cases. World Neurosurg 82 : e525-e530, 2014 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2013.08.005
  20. Liang W, Xiaofeng Y, Weiguo L, Gang S, Xuesheng Z, Fei C, et al. : Cranioplasty of large cranial defect at an early stage after decompressive craniectomy performed for severe head trauma. J Craniofac Surg 18 : 526-532, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0b013e3180534348
  21. Maas CS, Merwin GE, Wilson J, Frey MD, Maves MD : Comparison of biomaterials for facial bone augmentation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 116 : 551-556, 1990 https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.1990.01870050051005
  22. Marchac D, Greensmith A : Long-term experience with methylmethacrylate cranioplasty in craniofacial surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 61 : 744-752; discussion 753, 2008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2007.10.055
  23. Matsuno A, Tanaka H, Iwamuro H, Takanashi S, Miyawaki S, Nakashima M, et al. : Analyses of the factors influencing bone graft infection after delayed cranioplasty. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 148 : 535-540; discussion 540, 2006 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-006-0740-6
  24. Moreira-Gonzalez A, Jackson IT, Miyawaki T, Barakat K, DiNick V : Clinical outcome in cranioplasty : critical review in long-term followup. J Craniofac Surg 14 : 144-153, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1097/00001665-200303000-00003
  25. Sarov M, Guichard JP, Chibarro S, Guettard E, Godin O, Yelnik A, et al. : Sinking skin flap syndrome and paradoxical herniation after hemicraniectomy for malignant hemispheric infarction. Stroke 41 : 560-562, 2010 https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.568543
  26. Schiffer J, Gur R, Nisim U, Pollak L : Symptomatic patients after craniectomy. Surg Neurol 47 : 231-237, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-3019(96)00376-X
  27. Segal DH, Oppenheim JS, Murovic JA : Neurological recovery after cranioplasty. Neurosurgery 34 : 729-731; discussion 731, 1994 https://doi.org/10.1227/00006123-199404000-00024
  28. Shoakazemi A, Flannery T, McConnell RS : Long-term outcome of subcutaneously preserved autologous cranioplasty. Neurosurgery 65 : 505-510; discussion 510, 2009 https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000350870.69891.86
  29. Yadla S, Campbell PG, Chitale R, Maltenfort MG, Jabbour P, Sharan AD : Effect of early surgery, material, and method of flap preservation on cranioplasty infections : a systematic review. Neurosurgery 68 : 1124-1129; discussion 1130, 2011 https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e31820a5470

Cited by

  1. Cranioplasty: An Institutional Experience vol.29, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000004512
  2. A case series of early and late cranioplasty—comparison of surgical outcomes vol.161, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-019-03820-9
  3. A Clinical Study on the Prognosis of Patients with Skull Defects after Severe Craniocerebral Injury by Super Early Cranial Repair vol.10, pp.7, 2020, https://doi.org/10.12677/acm.2020.107213
  4. Single procedure revision cranioplasty with intra-operative autoclave following titanium plate exposure vol.34, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1080/02688697.2019.1690129
  5. The Materials Utilized in Cranial Reconstruction: Past, Current, and Future vol.29, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1177/2292550320928560