Complications of Different Types of Cranioplasty and Identification of Risk Factors Associated with Cranioplasty at a Tertiary Care Centre: A Prospective Observational Study

Abstract

Objective Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is an urgent procedure which is done to decrease intracranial pressure. A study of the complications would suggest measures to improve the care. This study was focused on analyzing the complications after cranioplasty (CP) and to identify risk factors that may be associated with the failure of the procedure.

Method: This study was conducted over 41 months at level-1 trauma center and medical college. It included patients undergoing CP for a defect arising out of previous DC or inability to replace the bone flap (Glasgow Coma Scale > 13, size > 5 cm, without surgical site infection). All patients underwent CT imaging before and after the procedure. The CP technique largely depended on the patients, based on the cost of prosthesis and availability.

Result: Hundred patients were included in the study. Postoperatively, total 22 patients suffered complications of which few had more than one complication. Titanium implant appeared to be a better implant, with no complication (p < 0.05). Complication was common in younger age group, chemically cured PMMA (polymethyl methacrylate) and ethylene oxide) sterilized bone flap). Complications were higher among patients with multiple comorbidity and stroke patients.

Conclusion: Titanium flap had no complication and in case of autologous abdominal subcutaneous flap, apart from bone flap absorption, patients had no major complication. Therefore, both implants are preferred implants for CP. Heat-cured PMMA can be used in case of nonavailability of a better option, as it is economical feasible and can be molded at any dental lab.

Keywords

Decompressive craniectomy - cranioplasty - infection - titanium - methyl methacrylate

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
23. Februar 2023

• References

• 1 Hutchinson P, Timofeev I, Kirkpatrick P. Surgery for brain edema. Neurosurg Focus 2007; 22 (05) E14
• 2 Ducic Y. Titanium mesh and hydroxyapatite cement cranioplasty: a report of 20 cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002; 60 (03) 272-276
• 3 Kriegel RJ, Schaller C, Clusmann H. Cranioplasty for large skull defects with PMMA (polymethylmethacrylate) or tutoplast processed autogenic bone grafts. Zentralbl Neurochir 2007; 68 (04) 182-189
• 4 Flannery T, McConnell RS. Cranioplasty: why throw the bone flap out?. Br J Neurosurg 2001; 15 (06) 518-520
• 5 Nievas MNCY, Höllerhage H-G. Early combined cranioplasty and programmable shunt in patients with skull bone defects and CSF-circulation disorders. Neurol Res 2006; 28 (02) 139-144
• 6 Liang W, Xiaofeng Y, Weiguo L. et al. Cranioplasty of large cranial defect at an early stage after decompressive craniectomy performed for severe head trauma. J Craniofac Surg 2007; 18 (03) 526-532
• 7 Gooch MR, Gin GE, Kenning TJ, German JW. Complications of cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy: analysis of 62 cases. Neurosurg Focus 2009; 26 (06) E9
• 8 Chaturvedi J, Botta R, Prabhuraj AR, Shukla D, Bhat DI, Devi BI. Complications of cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy for traumatic brain injury. Br J Neurosurg 2016; 30 (02) 264-268
• 9 Chang V, Hartzfeld P, Langlois M, Mahmood A, Seyfried D. Outcomes of cranial repair after craniectomy. J Neurosurg 2010; 112 (05) 1120-1124
• 10 Piedra MP, Thompson EM, Selden NR, Ragel BT, Guillaume DJ. Optimal timing of autologous cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy in children. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2012; 10 (04) 268-272
• 11 Zanaty M, Chalouhi N, Starke RM. et al. Complications following cranioplasty: incidence and predictors in 348 cases. J Neurosurg 2015; 123 (01) 182-188
• 12 De Bonis P, Frassanito P, Mangiola A, Nucci CG, Anile C, Pompucci A. Cranial repair: how complicated is filling a “hole”?. J Neurotrauma 2012; 29 (06) 1071-1076
• 13 Schuss P, Vatter H, Marquardt G. et al. Cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy: the effect of timing on postoperative complications. J Neurotrauma 2012; 29 (06) 1090-1095
• 14 Lee JW, Kim JH, Kang HI, Moon BG, Lee SJ, Kim JS. Epidural fluid collection after cranioplasty: fate and predictive factors. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2011; 50 (03) 231-234
• 15 Becker LC, Bergfeld WF, Belsito DV. et al. Final report of the cosmetic ingredient review expert panel safety assessment of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), methyl methacrylate crosspolymer, and methyl methacrylate/glycol dimethacrylate crosspolymer. Int J Toxicol 2011; 30 (3, Suppl): 54S-65S
• 16 Malcolm JG, Rindler RS, Chu JK, Grossberg JA, Pradilla G, Ahmad FU. Complications following cranioplasty and relationship to timing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Neurosci 2016; 33: 39-51
• 17 Walcott BP, Kwon CS, Sheth SA. et al. Predictors of cranioplasty complications in stroke and trauma patients. J Neurosurg 2013; 118 (04) 757-762
• 18 Farace E, Alves WM. Do women fare worse: a metaanalysis of gender differences in traumatic brain injury outcome. J Neurosurg 2000; 93 (04) 539-545
• 19 Lee MK, Sakai O, Spiegel JH. CT measurement of the frontal sinus—gender differences and implications for frontal cranioplasty. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2010; 38 (07) 494-500
• 20 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 2011; 68 (04) 1124-1129 , discussion 1130
• 21 Klinger DR, Madden C, Beshay J, White J, Gambrell K, Rickert K. Autologous and acrylic cranioplasty: a review of 10 years and 258 cases. World Neurosurg 2014; 82 (3-4): e525-e530
• 22 Cheng C-H, Lee H-C, Chen C-C, Cho D-Y, Lin H-L. 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: 85-89
• 23 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
• 24 Tsang AC-O, Hui VK-H, Lui W-M, Leung GK. Complications of post-craniectomy cranioplasty: risk factor analysis and implications for treatment planning. J Clin Neurosci 2015; 22 (05) 834-837
• 25 Bender A, Heulin S, Röhrer S. et al. Early cranioplasty may improve outcome in neurological patients with decompressive craniectomy. Brain Inj 2013; 27 (09) 1073-1079
• 26 Prasad GL, Menon GR, Kongwad LI, Kumar V. Outcomes of cranioplasty from a tertiary hospital in a developing country. Neurol India 2020; 68 (01) 63-70
• 27 Cheng Y-K, Weng H-H, Yang J-T, Lee M-H, Wang T-C, Chang C-N. Factors affecting graft infection after cranioplasty. J Clin Neurosci 2008; 15 (10) 1115-1119
• 28 Kim SP, Kang DS, Cheong JH, Kim JH, Song KY, Kong MH. Clinical analysis of epidural fluid collection as a complication after cranioplasty. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2014; 56 (05) 410-418
• 29 Thavarajah D, De Lacy P, Hussien A, Sugar A. The minimum time for cranioplasty insertion from craniectomy is six months to reduce risk of infection—a case series of 82 patients. Br J Neurosurg 2012; 26 (01) 78-80
• 30 Chalmers J, Gray DH, Rush J. Observations on the induction of bone in soft tissues. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1975; 57 (01) 36-45