Download PDF
Indian Journal of Neurotrauma 2010; 07(02): 139-144
DOI: 10.1016/S0973-0508(10)80029-2
Original article
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.

Cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy in traumatic brain injury: Experience at Level - I apex trauma centre

Noufal Basheer
,
Deepak Gupta
,
AK Mahapatra
,
Hitesh Gurjar
Subject Editor:
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
05 April 2017 (online)

  PDF Download  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Complications after cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy are often underreported. A review of the complications helps to suggest measures to improve the care of these patients. We provide a review of all complications of cranioplasty with autologous or synthetic materials in this article. All patients who had undergone cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy at JPN Apex trauma centre, AIIMS from Jan 2008 till 2010 April were included in the study. Demographic data, indications for craniectomy, materials used, methods of autologous bone storage and all perioperative complications were recorded. Total 114 patients were studied. Mean duration between decompressive craniectomy and cranioplasty was 207.6 ± 28.2 days (Mean ± SD) with a range of 50 to 840 days. The overall postoperative complication rate was 23% (26/114) of which 16 patients (14 %) had to undergo reoperation after cranioplasty. Bone flap infection was the commonest accounting for 10 (62.5 %) of the reoperations. Even though considered as simple procedure, cranioplasty is associated with significant complications requiring reoperation. There was no correlation of complications or need for reoperation with type of materials, storage of the bone or timing of surgery. A seemingly smaller neurosurgical operation requires good surgical approach to minimize morbidity associated with cranioplasty.

Keywords

Cranioplasty - decompressive craniectomy - severe head injury

* Paper presented in the award paper session during 18th National Neurotrauma Conference held at Chennai, 20-22 Aug 2010.


 

  • References

  • 1 Hutchinson PJ, Corteen E, Czosnyka M. et al Decompressive craniectomy in traumatic brain injury: the randomized multicenter RESCUE icp study www.RESCUEicp.com. Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien) 2006; 96: 17-20
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Jüttler E, Schwab S, Schmiedek P. et al Decompressive surgery for the treatment of malignant infarction of the middle cerebral artery (DESTINY): a randomized, controlled trial. Stroke 2007; 38: 2518-2525
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Azmi A, Latiff AZ, Johari A. Methyl methacrylate cranioplasty. Med J Malaysia 2004; 59: 418-421
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Blum KS, Schneider SJ, Rosenthal AD. Methyl methacrylate cranioplasty in children: long-term results. Pediatr Neurosurg 1997; 26: 33-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ducic Y. Titanium mesh and hydroxyapatite cement cranioplasty: a report of 20 cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002; 60: 272-276
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Durham SR, McComb JG, Levy ML. Correction of large (>25 cm) cranial defects with “reinforced” hydroxyapatite cement: technique and complications. Neurosurgery 2003; 52: 842-845
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Foster RD, Antonyshyn OM, Lee C, Holland M, Fazl M. Cranioplasty: Indications, techniques, and results. in Schmidek HH. (ed) Schmidek and Sweet Operative Neurosurgical Techniques. WB Saunders; Philadelphia: 2000: 29-44
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Kuo JR, Wang CC, Chio CC, Cheng TJ. Neurological improvement after cranioplasty—analysis by transcranial Doppler ultrasonography. J Clin Neurosci 2004; 11: 486-489
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Segal DH, Oppenheim JS, Murovic JA. Neurological recovery after cranioplasty. Neurosurgery 1994; 34: 729-731
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Suzuki N, Suzuki S, Iwabuchi T. Neurological improvement after cranioplasty. Analysis by dynamic CT scan. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1993; 122: 49-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Petty PG. Cranioplasty: a follow-up study. Med J Aust 1974; 02: 806-808
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gooch MR, Gin GE, Kenning TJ, German JW. Complications of cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy: analysis of 62 cases. Neurosurg Focus 2009; 26 (06) E9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Matsuno A, Tanaka H, Iwamuro H. et al Analyses of the factors influencing bone graft infection after delayed cranioplasty. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2006; 148: 535-540
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Movassaghi K, Ver Halen J, Ganchi P, Amin-Hanjani S, Mesa J, Yaremchuk MJ. Cranioplasty with subcutaneously preserved autologous bone grafts. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 117: 202-206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Osawa M, Hara H, Ichinose Y, Koyama T, Kobayashi S, Sugita Y. Cranioplasty with a frozen and autoclaved bone flap. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1990; 102: 38-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Paþaoðlu A, Kurtsoy A, Koc RK. et al Cranioplasty with bone flaps preserved under the scalp. Neurosurg Rev 1996; 19: 153-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Rish BL, Dillon JD, Meirowsky AM. et al Cranioplasty: a review of 1030 cases of penetrating head injury. Neurosurgery 1979; 04: 381-385
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar