4.1 Article

Cranioplasty: morbidity and failure

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY
卷 30, 期 5, 页码 523-528

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02688697.2016.1187259

关键词

Complications; cranioplasty; decompressive craniectomy; outcome

资金

  1. WA Health and Raine Medical Research Foundation through the Raine Clinical Research Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Cranioplasty is a technically straightforward procedure; however, it is becoming increasingly apparent that it is associated with relatively high morbidity and a significant failure rate due to either infection or autologous bone flap resorption. The aim of this study was to determine which factors influenced the incidence of cranioplasty complications and failure. Methods: A retrospective analysis was undertaken of all patients who had a cranioplasty at the two major trauma hospitals in Western Australia between the start of 2004 and the middle of 2015. Results: Five hundred and twelve had a cranioplasty after craniectomy for a variety of different indications. Sixty-three patients developed a postoperative intracranial collection following cranioplasty (12.3%, 95% confidence interval [Cl] 9.7-15.4), however only 19 required surgical evacuation. One hundred and twenty-one patients had seizures following cranioplasty (23.6%, 95% Cl 20.2-27.5) Nine patients died within six months following cranioplasty. Forty-two patients (8.2%, 95% Cl 6.1-10.9) developed cranioplasty infection that necessitated removal of the implant. However a change in clinical management of these patients had led to no infections for the past three years. Amongst 330 patients who had autologous cranioplasty, clinically significant bone resorption occurred in 69 patients (20.9%, 95% Cl 16.9-25.6). Conclusion: One key finding in this study is the reduction in infection rate that can occur when a single senior clinician performs the procedure and there is strict adherence to aseptic technique. This may result in a significant reduction in morbidity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据