Timing of cranial reconstruction after cranioplasty infections: are we ready for a re-thinking? A comparative analysis of delayed versus immediate cranioplasty after debridement in a series of 48 patients
The optimal management of cranioplasty infections remains a matter of debate. Most authors have suggested that the infected bone/implant removal is mandatory, combined with prolonged antibiotic therapy before reconstruction. However, failures can occur, even with 12–18-month intervals between the su...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Neurosurgical review 2021-06, Vol.44 (3), p.1523-1532 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1532 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 1523 |
container_title | Neurosurgical review |
container_volume | 44 |
creator | Di Rienzo, Alessandro Colasanti, Roberto Gladi, Maurizio Dobran, Mauro Della Costanza, Martina Capece, Mara Veccia, Salvatore Iacoangeli, Maurizio |
description | The optimal management of cranioplasty infections remains a matter of debate. Most authors have suggested that the infected bone/implant removal is mandatory, combined with prolonged antibiotic therapy before reconstruction. However, failures can occur, even with 12–18-month intervals between the surgeries. Longer wait times before cranial reconstruction increase the risks of socioeconomic burdens and further complications, as observed in decompressed patients hosting shunts. In our department, we treated 48 cranioplasty infections over a period of 8 years, divided into two groups. For Group A (
n
= 26), the treatment consisted of cranioplasty removal and debridement, followed by a delayed reconstruction. Group B (
n
= 22) received 2 weeks of broad-spectrum antibiotics, followed by an “
aggressive
” field debridement and immediate cranioplasty. All patients received a minimum of 8 weeks of post-operative antibiotic therapy and were scheduled for clinic-radiological follow-ups for at least 36 months. Significant differences were observed between Groups A and B with respect to the number of failures (respectively 7 versus 1), the global operative time (significantly longer for Group B), germ identification (respectively 7 versus 13), and the overall length of hospital stay (on average, 61.04 days in Group A versus 47.41 days in Group B). Three shunted patients in Group A developed sinking flap syndrome. Shunt resetting allowed symptom control until cranioplasty in one subject, whereas two did not improve, even after reconstruction. In selected patients, an aggressive field debridement, followed by the immediate replacement of an infected cranioplasty, may represent a safe and valuable option. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10143-020-01341-z |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2418124447</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2418124447</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-938ea99a1b517cee363ce22fe828963f0f6a4862a1c95a606f4248efa6317b373</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc1uFDEQhEcIRDaBF-CAfOQy4L-dHy4oioAgReISzlavpx0cZuzF7Uk0eUYeCu9OQOLCyS1X9VdSV1W9Evyt4Lx9R4ILrWouec2F0qJ-eFJtyk9bSyX502rDldb1tuHtSXVKdMu5aHsunlcnSm57WRib6te1n3y4YdExmyB4GFlCGwPlNNvsY2DgMqZVjPsRKC_MB4dHkd4zSMjusSzBsDAXE4My1_m7Dz8K9wM7ZzZOe0iQ_R0yCDAu5OmQN-AICw7sDhPNxPw04eAh479Za_yAu-QHnDDkkl4yCJPHI0Z3bF_gRaEX1TMHI-HLx_es-vbp4_XFZX319fOXi_Or2ird5rpXHULfg9htRWsRVaMsSumwk13fKMddA7prJAjbb6HhjdNSd-igUaLdqVadVW9W7j7FnzNSNpMni-MIAeNMRmrRCam1PljlarUpEiV0Zp_8BGkxgptDi2Zt0ZQWzbFF81CWXj_y5105yt-VP7UVg1oNVKRwg8ncxjmV29L_sL8BQ6CtFw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2418124447</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Timing of cranial reconstruction after cranioplasty infections: are we ready for a re-thinking? A comparative analysis of delayed versus immediate cranioplasty after debridement in a series of 48 patients</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Di Rienzo, Alessandro ; Colasanti, Roberto ; Gladi, Maurizio ; Dobran, Mauro ; Della Costanza, Martina ; Capece, Mara ; Veccia, Salvatore ; Iacoangeli, Maurizio</creator><creatorcontrib>Di Rienzo, Alessandro ; Colasanti, Roberto ; Gladi, Maurizio ; Dobran, Mauro ; Della Costanza, Martina ; Capece, Mara ; Veccia, Salvatore ; Iacoangeli, Maurizio</creatorcontrib><description>The optimal management of cranioplasty infections remains a matter of debate. Most authors have suggested that the infected bone/implant removal is mandatory, combined with prolonged antibiotic therapy before reconstruction. However, failures can occur, even with 12–18-month intervals between the surgeries. Longer wait times before cranial reconstruction increase the risks of socioeconomic burdens and further complications, as observed in decompressed patients hosting shunts. In our department, we treated 48 cranioplasty infections over a period of 8 years, divided into two groups. For Group A (
n
= 26), the treatment consisted of cranioplasty removal and debridement, followed by a delayed reconstruction. Group B (
n
= 22) received 2 weeks of broad-spectrum antibiotics, followed by an “
aggressive
” field debridement and immediate cranioplasty. All patients received a minimum of 8 weeks of post-operative antibiotic therapy and were scheduled for clinic-radiological follow-ups for at least 36 months. Significant differences were observed between Groups A and B with respect to the number of failures (respectively 7 versus 1), the global operative time (significantly longer for Group B), germ identification (respectively 7 versus 13), and the overall length of hospital stay (on average, 61.04 days in Group A versus 47.41 days in Group B). Three shunted patients in Group A developed sinking flap syndrome. Shunt resetting allowed symptom control until cranioplasty in one subject, whereas two did not improve, even after reconstruction. In selected patients, an aggressive field debridement, followed by the immediate replacement of an infected cranioplasty, may represent a safe and valuable option.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0344-5607</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1437-2320</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10143-020-01341-z</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32592100</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Neurosurgery ; Original Article</subject><ispartof>Neurosurgical review, 2021-06, Vol.44 (3), p.1523-1532</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-938ea99a1b517cee363ce22fe828963f0f6a4862a1c95a606f4248efa6317b373</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-938ea99a1b517cee363ce22fe828963f0f6a4862a1c95a606f4248efa6317b373</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5026-8089</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10143-020-01341-z$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10143-020-01341-z$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32592100$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Di Rienzo, Alessandro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Colasanti, Roberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gladi, Maurizio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dobran, Mauro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Della Costanza, Martina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Capece, Mara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Veccia, Salvatore</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Iacoangeli, Maurizio</creatorcontrib><title>Timing of cranial reconstruction after cranioplasty infections: are we ready for a re-thinking? A comparative analysis of delayed versus immediate cranioplasty after debridement in a series of 48 patients</title><title>Neurosurgical review</title><addtitle>Neurosurg Rev</addtitle><addtitle>Neurosurg Rev</addtitle><description>The optimal management of cranioplasty infections remains a matter of debate. Most authors have suggested that the infected bone/implant removal is mandatory, combined with prolonged antibiotic therapy before reconstruction. However, failures can occur, even with 12–18-month intervals between the surgeries. Longer wait times before cranial reconstruction increase the risks of socioeconomic burdens and further complications, as observed in decompressed patients hosting shunts. In our department, we treated 48 cranioplasty infections over a period of 8 years, divided into two groups. For Group A (
n
= 26), the treatment consisted of cranioplasty removal and debridement, followed by a delayed reconstruction. Group B (
n
= 22) received 2 weeks of broad-spectrum antibiotics, followed by an “
aggressive
” field debridement and immediate cranioplasty. All patients received a minimum of 8 weeks of post-operative antibiotic therapy and were scheduled for clinic-radiological follow-ups for at least 36 months. Significant differences were observed between Groups A and B with respect to the number of failures (respectively 7 versus 1), the global operative time (significantly longer for Group B), germ identification (respectively 7 versus 13), and the overall length of hospital stay (on average, 61.04 days in Group A versus 47.41 days in Group B). Three shunted patients in Group A developed sinking flap syndrome. Shunt resetting allowed symptom control until cranioplasty in one subject, whereas two did not improve, even after reconstruction. In selected patients, an aggressive field debridement, followed by the immediate replacement of an infected cranioplasty, may represent a safe and valuable option.</description><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Neurosurgery</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><issn>0344-5607</issn><issn>1437-2320</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kc1uFDEQhEcIRDaBF-CAfOQy4L-dHy4oioAgReISzlavpx0cZuzF7Uk0eUYeCu9OQOLCyS1X9VdSV1W9Evyt4Lx9R4ILrWouec2F0qJ-eFJtyk9bSyX502rDldb1tuHtSXVKdMu5aHsunlcnSm57WRib6te1n3y4YdExmyB4GFlCGwPlNNvsY2DgMqZVjPsRKC_MB4dHkd4zSMjusSzBsDAXE4My1_m7Dz8K9wM7ZzZOe0iQ_R0yCDAu5OmQN-AICw7sDhPNxPw04eAh479Za_yAu-QHnDDkkl4yCJPHI0Z3bF_gRaEX1TMHI-HLx_es-vbp4_XFZX319fOXi_Or2ird5rpXHULfg9htRWsRVaMsSumwk13fKMddA7prJAjbb6HhjdNSd-igUaLdqVadVW9W7j7FnzNSNpMni-MIAeNMRmrRCam1PljlarUpEiV0Zp_8BGkxgptDi2Zt0ZQWzbFF81CWXj_y5105yt-VP7UVg1oNVKRwg8ncxjmV29L_sL8BQ6CtFw</recordid><startdate>20210601</startdate><enddate>20210601</enddate><creator>Di Rienzo, Alessandro</creator><creator>Colasanti, Roberto</creator><creator>Gladi, Maurizio</creator><creator>Dobran, Mauro</creator><creator>Della Costanza, Martina</creator><creator>Capece, Mara</creator><creator>Veccia, Salvatore</creator><creator>Iacoangeli, Maurizio</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5026-8089</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210601</creationdate><title>Timing of cranial reconstruction after cranioplasty infections: are we ready for a re-thinking? A comparative analysis of delayed versus immediate cranioplasty after debridement in a series of 48 patients</title><author>Di Rienzo, Alessandro ; Colasanti, Roberto ; Gladi, Maurizio ; Dobran, Mauro ; Della Costanza, Martina ; Capece, Mara ; Veccia, Salvatore ; Iacoangeli, Maurizio</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-938ea99a1b517cee363ce22fe828963f0f6a4862a1c95a606f4248efa6317b373</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Neurosurgery</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Di Rienzo, Alessandro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Colasanti, Roberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gladi, Maurizio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dobran, Mauro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Della Costanza, Martina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Capece, Mara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Veccia, Salvatore</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Iacoangeli, Maurizio</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Neurosurgical review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Di Rienzo, Alessandro</au><au>Colasanti, Roberto</au><au>Gladi, Maurizio</au><au>Dobran, Mauro</au><au>Della Costanza, Martina</au><au>Capece, Mara</au><au>Veccia, Salvatore</au><au>Iacoangeli, Maurizio</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Timing of cranial reconstruction after cranioplasty infections: are we ready for a re-thinking? A comparative analysis of delayed versus immediate cranioplasty after debridement in a series of 48 patients</atitle><jtitle>Neurosurgical review</jtitle><stitle>Neurosurg Rev</stitle><addtitle>Neurosurg Rev</addtitle><date>2021-06-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>44</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>1523</spage><epage>1532</epage><pages>1523-1532</pages><issn>0344-5607</issn><eissn>1437-2320</eissn><abstract>The optimal management of cranioplasty infections remains a matter of debate. Most authors have suggested that the infected bone/implant removal is mandatory, combined with prolonged antibiotic therapy before reconstruction. However, failures can occur, even with 12–18-month intervals between the surgeries. Longer wait times before cranial reconstruction increase the risks of socioeconomic burdens and further complications, as observed in decompressed patients hosting shunts. In our department, we treated 48 cranioplasty infections over a period of 8 years, divided into two groups. For Group A (
n
= 26), the treatment consisted of cranioplasty removal and debridement, followed by a delayed reconstruction. Group B (
n
= 22) received 2 weeks of broad-spectrum antibiotics, followed by an “
aggressive
” field debridement and immediate cranioplasty. All patients received a minimum of 8 weeks of post-operative antibiotic therapy and were scheduled for clinic-radiological follow-ups for at least 36 months. Significant differences were observed between Groups A and B with respect to the number of failures (respectively 7 versus 1), the global operative time (significantly longer for Group B), germ identification (respectively 7 versus 13), and the overall length of hospital stay (on average, 61.04 days in Group A versus 47.41 days in Group B). Three shunted patients in Group A developed sinking flap syndrome. Shunt resetting allowed symptom control until cranioplasty in one subject, whereas two did not improve, even after reconstruction. In selected patients, an aggressive field debridement, followed by the immediate replacement of an infected cranioplasty, may represent a safe and valuable option.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>32592100</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10143-020-01341-z</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5026-8089</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0344-5607 |
ispartof | Neurosurgical review, 2021-06, Vol.44 (3), p.1523-1532 |
issn | 0344-5607 1437-2320 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2418124447 |
source | SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
subjects | Medicine Medicine & Public Health Neurosurgery Original Article |
title | Timing of cranial reconstruction after cranioplasty infections: are we ready for a re-thinking? A comparative analysis of delayed versus immediate cranioplasty after debridement in a series of 48 patients |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T18%3A38%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Timing%20of%20cranial%20reconstruction%20after%20cranioplasty%20infections:%20are%20we%20ready%20for%20a%20re-thinking?%20A%20comparative%20analysis%20of%20delayed%20versus%20immediate%20cranioplasty%20after%20debridement%20in%20a%20series%20of%2048%20patients&rft.jtitle=Neurosurgical%20review&rft.au=Di%20Rienzo,%20Alessandro&rft.date=2021-06-01&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=1523&rft.epage=1532&rft.pages=1523-1532&rft.issn=0344-5607&rft.eissn=1437-2320&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10143-020-01341-z&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2418124447%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2418124447&rft_id=info:pmid/32592100&rfr_iscdi=true |