自体颅骨成形术与人工颅骨成形术比较

Arif Zafar, Samantha Strickland, Shailendra Achawal
{"title":"自体颅骨成形术与人工颅骨成形术比较","authors":"Arif Zafar, Samantha Strickland, Shailendra Achawal","doi":"10.33962/roneuro-2023-003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background. Cranioplasty has been described in history as far back as the 16th century. The use of autologous cranioplasty has been published since 1821 and is still under practice today worldwide. Recent evidence however has suggested increased complication and revision rates with the use of autologous bone. We compared our results of autologous cranioplasty versus synthetic material. Methods. A retrospective study was carried out of cranioplasty procedures at our unit between August 2009 and March 2018. Bone flaps were placed in a sterile sealed plastic container and stored at -81 degrees. Swabs and bone chips were used for cultures and bone flap disposed if positive. On re-implantation, the bone was thawed at room temperature and soaked in gentamicin. Synthetic cranioplasties were constructed using thin-slice CT to design a custom flap for each patient. Results. 144 cranioplasties were studied. 51 own bone and 93 synthetic. The average delay in cranioplasty was 286 days (Range 16 – 1264 days). The overall complication rate for all 144 cranioplasties was 20.8%; Autologous 31.4% and synthetic 15.1%; p 0.031. Bone flap infection rate overall for all 144 cases was 9.7% - Autologous 11.8% and Synthetic 8.6%; p 0.565. The revision rate was found to be 13.2% overall; 23.5% for autologous and 7.5% for synthetic. The difference in revision rate was found to be statistically significant (p 0.01). Conclusion. Revision rate and overall complication rate were higher in the own bone group with P<0.05. There was no difference in infection. Our results mirror recent publications and should be considered when undertaking a cranioplasty.","PeriodicalId":30188,"journal":{"name":"Romanian Neurosurgery","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Autologous versus synthetic cranioplasty\",\"authors\":\"Arif Zafar, Samantha Strickland, Shailendra Achawal\",\"doi\":\"10.33962/roneuro-2023-003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background. Cranioplasty has been described in history as far back as the 16th century. The use of autologous cranioplasty has been published since 1821 and is still under practice today worldwide. Recent evidence however has suggested increased complication and revision rates with the use of autologous bone. We compared our results of autologous cranioplasty versus synthetic material. Methods. A retrospective study was carried out of cranioplasty procedures at our unit between August 2009 and March 2018. Bone flaps were placed in a sterile sealed plastic container and stored at -81 degrees. Swabs and bone chips were used for cultures and bone flap disposed if positive. On re-implantation, the bone was thawed at room temperature and soaked in gentamicin. Synthetic cranioplasties were constructed using thin-slice CT to design a custom flap for each patient. Results. 144 cranioplasties were studied. 51 own bone and 93 synthetic. The average delay in cranioplasty was 286 days (Range 16 – 1264 days). The overall complication rate for all 144 cranioplasties was 20.8%; Autologous 31.4% and synthetic 15.1%; p 0.031. Bone flap infection rate overall for all 144 cases was 9.7% - Autologous 11.8% and Synthetic 8.6%; p 0.565. The revision rate was found to be 13.2% overall; 23.5% for autologous and 7.5% for synthetic. The difference in revision rate was found to be statistically significant (p 0.01). Conclusion. Revision rate and overall complication rate were higher in the own bone group with P<0.05. There was no difference in infection. Our results mirror recent publications and should be considered when undertaking a cranioplasty.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30188,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Romanian Neurosurgery\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Romanian Neurosurgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33962/roneuro-2023-003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Romanian Neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33962/roneuro-2023-003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景。历史上对颅骨成形术的描述可以追溯到16世纪。自1821年以来,自体颅骨成形术的使用已经发表,并且至今仍在世界范围内实践。然而,最近的证据表明自体骨的使用增加了并发症和翻修率。我们比较了自体颅骨成形术和合成材料成形术的结果。方法。2009年8月至2018年3月期间,我们单位对颅骨成形术进行了回顾性研究。骨瓣放置在无菌密封塑料容器中,在-81度保存。拭子和骨片用于培养,如果阳性则处理骨瓣。再植入时,骨在室温下解冻并浸泡在庆大霉素中。利用薄层CT为每位患者设计定制皮瓣构建合成颅骨成形术。结果:144例颅骨成形术。51是自己的骨头,93是合成的。颅骨成形术的平均延迟时间为286天(范围16 - 1264天)。144例颅骨成形术的总并发症发生率为20.8%;自体31.4%,合成15.1%;0.031 p。144例骨瓣总体感染率为9.7%,自体骨瓣为11.8%,合成骨瓣为8.6%;0.565 p。总体修正率为13.2%;自体23.5%,合成7.5%。复习率差异有统计学意义(p < 0.01)。结论。自骨组翻修率和总并发症发生率均高于P<组;0.05。感染方面没有差异。我们的结果反映了最近的出版物,在进行颅骨成形术时应予以考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Autologous versus synthetic cranioplasty
Background. Cranioplasty has been described in history as far back as the 16th century. The use of autologous cranioplasty has been published since 1821 and is still under practice today worldwide. Recent evidence however has suggested increased complication and revision rates with the use of autologous bone. We compared our results of autologous cranioplasty versus synthetic material. Methods. A retrospective study was carried out of cranioplasty procedures at our unit between August 2009 and March 2018. Bone flaps were placed in a sterile sealed plastic container and stored at -81 degrees. Swabs and bone chips were used for cultures and bone flap disposed if positive. On re-implantation, the bone was thawed at room temperature and soaked in gentamicin. Synthetic cranioplasties were constructed using thin-slice CT to design a custom flap for each patient. Results. 144 cranioplasties were studied. 51 own bone and 93 synthetic. The average delay in cranioplasty was 286 days (Range 16 – 1264 days). The overall complication rate for all 144 cranioplasties was 20.8%; Autologous 31.4% and synthetic 15.1%; p 0.031. Bone flap infection rate overall for all 144 cases was 9.7% - Autologous 11.8% and Synthetic 8.6%; p 0.565. The revision rate was found to be 13.2% overall; 23.5% for autologous and 7.5% for synthetic. The difference in revision rate was found to be statistically significant (p 0.01). Conclusion. Revision rate and overall complication rate were higher in the own bone group with P<0.05. There was no difference in infection. Our results mirror recent publications and should be considered when undertaking a cranioplasty.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Similarities and differences between two coincidently gravitational bullet cases Role of extent of resection on the survival of glioblastoma multiforme Management of brain aneurysm neck-avulsion during clipping surgery A giant A4-A5 distal anterior cerebral artery aneurysm treated with microsurgical clip reconstruction Sellar hematoma as a new potential radiological clue for superior hypophyseal artery aneurysm rupture
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1