Suggestions
Idioma
Guide for authors
Searcher
Journal Information
Vol. 35. Issue 3.
Pages 113-168 (May - June 2024)
Cite
Cite
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Visits
1204
Vol. 35. Issue 3.
Pages 113-168 (May - June 2024)
Investigación clínica

Factores perioperatorios asociados al desarrollo de complicaciones agudas tras reposición ósea en la craniectomía descompresiva

Perioperative risk factors for major complications after bone replacement in decompressive craniectomy
Visits
1204
Antonio Montalvo-Afonso
Corresponding author
anmontal90@gmail.com

Autor para correspondencia.
, José Manuel Castilla-Díez, Vicente Martín-Velasco, Javier Martín-Alonso, Rubén Diana-Martín, Pedro David Delgado-López
Departamento de Neurocirugía, Hospital Universitario de Burgos, Burgos, España
This item has received
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Resumen
Introducción

La cirugía de reposición ósea tras una craniectomía descompresiva es un procedimiento a priori de baja complejidad, aunque no exento de complicaciones postoperatorias que pueden impactar negativamente en el pronóstico del paciente. Conocer aquellos factores que predisponen a dichas complicaciones, podría reducir su incidencia.

Pacientes y métodos

Se realizó una revisión retrospectiva de una serie de 50 pacientes sometidos a reposición ósea tras craniectomía descompresiva en un centro terciario a lo largo de 10 años. Se registraron aquellas variables clínicas relativas a las complicaciones agudas tras la reposición y se analizaron sus factores de riesgo.

Resultados

Un total de 18 pacientes (36%) presentaron complicaciones agudas tras la reposición ósea, de los cuales 10 (55,5%) requirieron una nueva cirugía para su tratamiento. El 95% de las reposiciones se realizaron en los primeros 90 días tras la craniectomía, con una tendencia a presentar más complicaciones respecto al periodo posterior (37,8% vs. 20%, p>0,05). La complicación más frecuente fue el higroma subdural, de aparición más tardía que la infección, que fue la segunda complicación más frecuente. Tanto la necesidad de drenaje ventricular o traqueostomía, como el tiempo medio de ventilación mecánica, ingreso en UCI o espera hasta la reposición ósea, fueron mayores en los pacientes que presentaron complicaciones post-reposición. La presencia previa de infecciones fuera del sitio quirúrgico fue el único factor de riesgo asociado al desarrollo de complicaciones post-reposición (p=0,031).

Conclusiones

En la muestra analizada se registraron complicaciones postoperatorias en más de un tercio de los pacientes a los que se les repuso el hueso craneal, y al menos la mitad requirieron una nueva intervención. Un protocolo específico dirigido al control de las infecciones previas podría reducir el riesgo de complicaciones y ayudar a establecer el tiempo óptimo para la reposición ósea craneal.

Palabras clave:
Craneoplastia
Craniectomía descompresiva
Complicación
Reposición ósea
Infección
Higroma subdural
Abstract
Introduction

Bone flap replacement after a decompressive craniectomy is a low complexity procedure, but with complications that can negatively impact the patient's outcome. A better knowledge of the risk factors for these complications could reduce their incidence.

Patients and methods

A retrospective review of a series of 50 patients who underwent bone replacement after decompressive craniectomy at a tertiary center over a 10-year period was performed. Those clinical variables related to complications after replacement were recorded and their risk factors were analyzed.

Results

A total of 18 patients (36%) presented complications after bone flap replacement, of which 10 (55.5%) required a new surgery for their treatment. Most of the replacements (95%) were performed in the first 90 days after the craniectomy, with a tendency to present more complications compared to the subsequent period (37.8% vs. 20%, p>0.05). The most frequent complication was subdural hygroma, which appeared later than infection, the second most frequent complication. The need for ventricular drainage or tracheostomy and the mean time on mechanical ventilation, ICU admission, or waiting until bone replacement were greater in patients who presented post-replacement complications. Previous infections outside the nervous system or the surgical wound was the only risk factor for post-bone flap replacement complications (p=0.031).

Conclusions

Postoperative complications were recorded in more than a third of the patients who underwent cranial bone flap replacement, and at least half of them required a new surgery. A specific protocol aimed at controlling previous infections could reduce the risk of complications and help establish the optimal time for cranial bone flap replacement.

Keywords:
Cranioplasty
Decompressive craniectomy
Complication
Bone flap replacement
Infection
Subdural hygroma

Article

These are the options to access the full texts of the publication Neurocirugía (English edition)
Member
Member of the Sociedad Española de Neurocirugía

If it is the first time you have accessed you can obtain your credentials by contacting Elsevier Spain in suscripciones@elsevier.com or by calling our Customer Service at902 88 87 40 if you are calling from Spain or at +34 932 418 800 (from 9 to 18h., GMT + 1) if you are calling outside of Spain.

If you already have your login data, please click here .

If you have forgotten your password you can you can recover it by clicking here and selecting the option ¿I have forgotten my password¿.

Subscriber
Subscriber

If you already have your login data, please click here .

If you have forgotten your password you can you can recover it by clicking here and selecting the option “I have forgotten my password”
Subscribe
Subscribe to
Neurocirugía (English edition)
Purchase
Purchase article

Purchasing article the PDF version will be downloaded

Purchase now
Contact
Phone for subscriptions and reporting of errors
From Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. (GMT + 1) except for the months of July and August which will be from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
Calls from Spain
932 415 960
Calls from outside Spain
+34 932 415 960
Email
Bibliografía
[1]
N. Canac, K. Jalaleddini, S.G. Thorpe, C.M. Thibeault, R.B. Hamilton.
Review: pathophysiology of intracranial hypertension and noninvasive intracranial pressure monitoring.
Fluids Barriers CNS., 17 (2020), pp. 40
[2]
L. Rangel-Castillo, S. Gopinath, C.S. Robertson.
Management of intracranial hypertension.
Neurol Clin., 26 (2008), pp. 521-541
[3]
A.G. Kolias, P.J. Kirkpatrick, P.J. Hutchinson.
Decompressive craniectomy: past, present and future.
Nat Rev Neurol., 9 (2013), pp. 405-415
[4]
S. Honeybul, D.A. Morrison, K.M. Ho, C.R.P. Lind, E. Geelhoed.
A randomised controlled trial comparing autologous cranioplasty with custom-made titanium cranioplasty: long-term follow-up.
Acta Neurochir., 160 (2018), pp. 885-891
[5]
J.G. Malcolm, R.S. Rindler, J.K. Chu, J.A. Grossberg, G. Pradilla, F.U. Ahmad.
Complications following cranioplasty and relationship to timing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
J Clin Neurosci., 33 (2016), pp. 39-51
[6]
K.M. Beauchamp, J. Kashuk, E.E. Moore, G. Bolles, C. Rabb, J. Seinfeld, et al.
Cranioplasty After Postinjury Decompressive Craniectomy: Is Timing of the Essence?.
[7]
R.P. Morton, I.J. Abecassis, J.F. Hanson, J.K. Barber, M. Chen, C.M. Kelly, et al.
Timing of cranioplasty: a 10.75-year single-center analysis of 754 patients.
J Neurosurg., 128 (2018), pp. 1648-1652
[8]
F. Coelho, G. Noleto, D. Solla, P.N. Martins, A.F. Andrade, M.J. Teixeira, et al.
Functional improvements associated with cranioplasty after stroke and traumatic brain injury: a cohort study.
Brain Impair., 24 (2023), pp. 721-731
[9]
Á. Galiana, S. Ruiz, J. Alén, A. Gómez Grande, I. Panero, D. Vega, et al.
Effects of cranioplasty in cerebral blood perfusion using quantification with 99m-Tc HMPAO SPECT-CT.
J Neuroimaging., 33 (2023), pp. 174-183
[10]
A.H. Shahid, M. Mohanty, N. Singla, B.R. Mittal, S.K. Gupta.
The effect of cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy on cerebral blood perfusion, neurological, and cognitive outcome.
J Neurosurg., 128 (2017), pp. 229-235
[11]
I. Paredes, A.M. Castaño-León, P.M. Munarriz, R. Martínez-Perez, S. Cepeda, R. Sanz, et al.
Cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy. A prospective series analyzing complications and clinical improvement.
Neurocirugia., 26 (2015), pp. 115-125
[12]
M. Zanaty, N. Chalouhi, R.M. Starke, S.W. Clark, C.D. Bovenzi, M. Saigh, et al.
Complications following cranioplasty: incidence and predictors in 348 cases.
J Neurosurg., 123 (2015), pp. 182-188
[13]
E. Shiban, N. Lange, A. Hauser, A.K. Jörger, A. Wagner, B. Meyer, et al.
Cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy: minor surgical complexity but still high periprocedural complication rates.
Neurosurg Rev., 43 (2020), pp. 217-222
[14]
H. Xu, C. Niu, X. Fu, W. Ding, S. Ling, X. Jiang, et al.
Early cranioplasty vs. late cranioplasty for the treatment of cranial defect: A systematic review.
Clin Neurol Neurosurg., 136 (2015), pp. 33-40
[15]
M.S. Tora, J.G. Malcolm, Z. Mahmooth, A. Pujari, R.S. Rindler, N.M. Boulis, et al.
Complication Rates in Early Versus Late Cranioplasty-A 14-Year Single-Center Case Series.
Operative Neurosurgery., 20 (2021), pp. 389-396
[16]
J.G. Malcolm, R.S. Rindler, J.K. Chu, F. Chokshi, J.A. Grossberg, G. Pradilla, et al.
Early cranioplasty is associated with greater neurological improvement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Neurosurgery., 82 (2018), pp. 278-288
[17]
M.C. De Cola, F. Corallo, D. Pria, V. Lo Buono, R.S. Calabrò.
Timing for cranioplasty to improve neurological outcome: a systematic review.
Brain Behav., 8 (2018), pp. e01106
[18]
J.C. Eaton, M.E. Greil, D. Nistal, D.J. Caldwell, E. Robinson, Z. Aljuboori, et al.
Complications associated with early cranioplasty for patients with traumatic brain injury: a 25-year single-center analysis.
J Neurosurg., (2022), pp. 1-6
[19]
C. Iaccarino, A. Kolias, P.D. Adelson, A.M. Rubiano, E. Viaroli, A. Buki, et al.
Consensus statement from the international consensus meeting on post-traumatic cranioplasty.
Acta Neurochir., 163 (2021), pp. 423-440
[20]
E. Tsianaka, E. Drosos, A. Singh, A. Tasiou, C. Gatos, K. Fountas.
Post-Cranioplasty Complications: Lessons From a Prospective Study Assessing Risk Factors.
J Craniofac Surg., 32 (2021), pp. 530-534
[21]
F. Zheng, H. Xu, N. von Spreckelsen, P. Stavrinou, M. Timmer, R. Goldbrunner, et al.
Early or late cranioplasty following decompressive craniotomy for traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
J Int Med Res., 46 (2018), pp. 2503-2512
[22]
T. Sauvigny, H. Giese, J. Höhne, K.M. Schebesch, C. Henker, A. Strauss, et al.
A multicenter cohort study of early complications after cranioplasty: results of the German Cranial Reconstruction Registry.
J Neurosurg., 137 (2021), pp. 591-598
[23]
T. Goedemans, D. Verbaan, O. van der Veer, M. Bot, R. Post, J. Hoogmoed, et al.
Complications in cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy: timing of the intervention.
J Neurol., 267 (2020), pp. 1312-1320
[24]
S. Reddy, S. Khalifian, J.M. Flores, J. Bellamy, P.N. Manson, E.D. Rodriguez, et al.
Clinical Outcomes in Cranioplasty: Risk Factors and Choice of Reconstructive Material.
Plast Reconstr Surg., 133 (2014), pp. 864-873
[25]
S. Honeybul, K.M. Ho.
Cranioplasty: morbidity and failure.
Br J Neurosurg., 30 (2016), pp. 523-528
[26]
P. Frassanito, F. Fraschetti, F. Bianchi, F. Giovannenze, M. Caldarelli, G. Scoppettuolo.
Management and prevention of cranioplasty infections.
Childs Nerv Syst., 35 (2019), pp. 1499-1506
[27]
H.H. Nam, H.J. Ki, H.J. Lee, S.K. Park.
Complications of cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy: risk factors of complications and comparison between autogenous and artificial bones.
Korean J Neurotrauma., 18 (2022), pp. 238-245
[28]
J. Sundseth, A. Sundseth, J. Berg-Johnsen, W. Sorteberg, K.-F. Lindegaard.
Cranioplasty with autologous cryopreserved bone after decompressive craniectomy: Complications and risk factors for developing surgical site infection.
Acta Neurochir., 156 (2014), pp. 805-811
Idiomas
Neurocirugía (English edition)
Article options
Tools