Cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy-analysis of Neurological outcome and complication rate: A single Centre Study
Keywords:cranioplasty, Decompressive craniectomy, outcome, complications.
Objective: To analyze the pattern of head injuries along with characteristics and outcomes among pediatric age group presenting in The Children hospital Lahore, Pakistan.
Material and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted and a total of 384 children of both genders aged up to 12 years presenting with head injuries were included. After initial review and resuscitation by the trauma unit or neurosurgery unit, children were evaluated clinically and radiologically and the plan was decided for further treatment. Gender, age, place of injury occurrence, etiology of injury, Glasgow coma score (GCS) at the time of enrollment, the interval between injury and admission, management, outcome, and total duration of hospital stay were recorded on a predesigned proforma.
Results: In a total of 384 children, 249 (64.8%) were boys. Overall, the mean age was 5.8 ± 3.3 years. Falls were the commonest etiology in 210 (54.7%) children while motor vehicle accidents were the cause of head trauma among 78 (20.3%) children. The mean interval between injury and presentation was noted to be 3.2 ± 2.1 hours. Mortality was reported in 56 (14.6%) children and it was observed that a significant association was noted between outcome and GCS at the time of presentation (p < 0.0001).
Conclusion: The majority of the pediatric head injury cases were male and aged above 5 years. The most common etiology of head injuries was falls followed by motor vehicle accidents. GCS ? 8 at the time of presentation was significantly linked with poor outcomes.
1. Timofeev I, Santarius T, Kolias AG, Hutchinson PJ. Decompressive craniectomy-operative technique and perioperative care. Adv Tech Stand Neurosurg 2012;38(3)115-36.
2. Ashayeri K, Jackson ME, Huang J,Breem H, Gordon RC. Syndrome of the trephined : a systemic review. Neurosurgery 2016;79:525-34.
3. Chang V, Hartzfeld P, Langlois M, Mahmood A, Seyfried D. Outcome of cranial repair after craniectomy. J Neurosurg 2010;69(3):1120-4.
4. Chun HJ, Yi HJ. Efficacy and safety of early cranioplasty at least with in one month. J Cranifac Surg 2017;22:203-7.
5. Cheng CH, Lee CH, Chen CC, Lin HI.Cryopreservation versus subcutaneous preservation of autologus bone flap for cranioplasty: a comparison of the surgical site infection and bone resorption rates. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2014;124(5):85-89.
6. Bonda DJ, Manjila S, Selman WR, Dean D. The recent revolution in the design and manufacture of cranial implants: modern advancement and future directions . Neurosurgery 2015;77:814-24.
7. Shah AM, Jung H,Skirboll S. Material used in cranioplasty: A history and analysis. Neurosurg Focus 2014;36(4):19-25.
8. Schoekler B,Trummer M. Predictor parameter of bone flap resorption following cranioplasty with autologus bone. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2018;120:64-7.
9. Martin KD, Franz B, Kirsch M, Polanski W, Hagen M,Schakert G et al. autologous bone flap cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy is combined with high complication rate in pediatric traumatic brain injury. Acta Neurochir 2014;156:813-24.
10. Lal PK, Shamim MS. The evolution of cranioplasty: A review of graft types. Storage option and operative techniques. Pakistan J of Neuorl Surg 2012;7(2):1-7.
11. Beauchamp KM, Kashuk J, Moore EE, Bolles G, Rabb C, Seinfield J, et al. cranioplasty after post injury decompressive craniectomy: is timing of the essence: J Trauma 2019;69(5):270-4.
12. Liang W, Xiaofeng Y, Weiguo L, Gang S, Xuesheng Z, Fei C, et al. cranioplasty of large cranial defect at an early stage after decompressisve craniectomy performed for severe head trauma. J Craniofac Surg 2007;18:526-32.
13. Reddy S, Khalifan S, Flores JM,Bellamy J, Manson PN, Rodriguez ED, et al. clinical outcome in cranioplasty: risk factor and choice of reconstructive material. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133:864-7.
14. Koller M, Raffer D, Shok G, Murphy S,Kiaei S, Samadani U. A retrospective descriptive study of cranioplasty failure rates and contributing factores in novel 3D printed calcium phosphate implant compared to traditional material. Print Med 2020;6(1):14-20.
15. Shah AM, Jung H, Skirboll S. Materials used in cranioplasy: a history and analysis. Neurosurg Focus 2014;36(4):19-23.
16. Hamandi YMH, Gin GE, Keninig TJ, German GW.Cranioplasty ( momomeric acrylic design in dental laboratory versus Methylmethcrylate Codmans type). Postgrad Med J 2017;10(3):198-203.
17. Andrabi SM, Sarmast AH, Kirmani AR, Bhat AR. Cranioplasty: indication, procedure, and outcome-an institutional experience Surgical Neuorol int 2017;8:91,
18. Singh S, Singh R, Jain K, Walia B. Cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy-analysis of complication rate and neuorolgical outcomes: a single center study. Surg Neurol Int 2019;10(142):1-7.
19. Basheer N, Gupta D, Mahaparta AK, Gurjar H. Craioplasty following decompressive craniectomy in traumatic brain injury: experience at level-I. Indian J Neurotrauma 2018;7:140-44.
20. Sobani ZA, Shamim MS, Zafar SN, Qadeer M, Bilal N,Murtaza SG, et al. Crainoplasty after decompressive craniectomy: An institutional audit and analysis of factors related to complications. Surg Neurol Int 2011;2:123.
Copyright (c) 2022 Pakistan Journal Of Neurological Surgery
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.