Effect of cranioplasty timing on the functional neurological outcome and postoperative complications

Predictive factors influencing outcome of early cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy: a outcome prediction model study

Objective

The timing of cranioplasty (CP) has become a widely debated topic in research, there is currently no unified standard. To this end, we established a outcome prediction model to explore the factors influencing the outcome of early CP. Our aim is to provide theoretical and practical basis for whether patients with skull defects after decompressive craniectomy (DC) are suitable for early CP.

Methods

A total of 90 patients with early CP after DC from January 2020 to December 2021 were retrospectively collected as the training group, and another 52 patients with early CP after DC from January 2022 to March 2023 were collected as the validation group. The Nomogram was established to explore the predictive factors that affect the outcome of early CP by Least absolute shrinkage analysis and selection operator (LASSO) regression and Logistic regression analysis. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the discrimination of the prediction model. Calibration curve was used to evaluate the accuracy of data fitting, and decision curve analysis (DCA) diagram was used to evaluate the benefit of using the model.

Results

Age, preoperative GCS, preoperative NIHSS, defect area, and interval time from DC to CP were the predictors of the risk prediction model of early CP in patients with skull defects. The area under ROC curve (AUC) of the training group was 0.924 (95%CI: 0.867-0.980), and the AUC of the validation group was 0.918 (95%CI, 0.842-0.993). Hosmer-Lemeshow fit test showed that the mean absolute error was small, and the fit degree was good. The probability threshold of decision risk curve was wide and had practical value.

Conclusion

The prediction model that considers the age, preoperative GCS, preoperative NIHSS, defect area, and interval time from DC has good predictive ability.

Recent Updates on Controversies in Decompressive Craniectomy and Cranioplasty: Physiological Effect, Indication, Complication, and Management

Decompressive craniectomy (DCE) and cranioplasty (CP) are surgical procedures used to manage elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) in various clinical scenarios, including ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and traumatic brain injury. The physiological changes following DCE, such as cerebral blood flow, perfusion, brain tissue oxygenation, and autoregulation, are essential for understanding the benefits and limitations of these procedures. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to systematically review the recent updates in DCE and CP, focusing on the fundamentals of DCE for ICP reduction, indications for DCE, optimal sizes and timing for DCE and CP, the syndrome of trephined, and the debate on suboccipital CP. The review highlights the need for further research on hemodynamic and metabolic indicators following DCE, particularly in relation to the pressure reactivity index. It provides recommendations for early CP within three months of controlling increased ICP to facilitate neurological recovery. Additionally, the review emphasizes the importance of considering suboccipital CP in patients with persistent headaches, cerebrospinal fluid leakage, or cerebellar sag after suboccipital craniectomy. A better understanding of the physiological effects, indications, complications, and management strategies for DCE and CP to control elevated ICP will help optimize patient outcomes and improve the overall effectiveness of these procedures.

Decompressive Hemicraniectomy in the Stroke Patient

Decompressive hemicraniectomy (DHC) is a life-saving procedure involving removal of large portions of the skull to relieve intracranial pressure in patients with space occupying cerebral edema such as traumatic brain injury (TBI) and stroke. Although the procedure has been shown to decrease mortality in patients, the risk of severe disability is significant. Quality of life, not just survival, following DHC has emerged as an important consideration when the decision is made to perform a DHC.

Comprehensive access strategies to the frontal sinus

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite the impressive evolutions in endoscopic endonasal approaches and instrumentations, the frontal sinus remains a challenging area. Different surgical options have been described over the years, but the main criticism lies in choosing the most suitable approach for a given case, based on the anatomy of each patient and the disease to treat. The purpose of this study is to provide a comprehensive review of surgical access strategies currently available to address the frontal sinus, including both endonasal and traditional external procedures, analysing indications, contraindications, complications and outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Frontal sinus surgery includes minimally invasive endonasal approaches (balloon dilatation, Draf type I); extended endonasal approaches (Draf type IIA-IIB-IIC, Draf type III and their modifications via orbital transposition and contralateral pyriform aperture resection); external procedures (superior eyelid incision, frontal osteoplastic flap, Riedel procedure, Riedel-Mosher operation); and combined approaches.

SUMMARY

Recent advances in endoscopic endonasal techniques have deeply reshaped the surgical options to manage frontal sinus diseases, in an attempt to minimize the invasiveness of the procedures and maximize their outcomes. Traditional external procedures should be used in selected cases nonamenable for endonasal surgery. The appropriate selection of cases appears to be of paramount importance to obtain successful outcomes.

Next-generation personalized cranioplasty treatment

Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is a surgical procedure, that is followed by cranioplasty surgery. DC is usually performed to treat patients with traumatic brain injury, intracranial hemorrhage, cerebral infarction, brain edema, skull fractures, etc. In many published clinical case studies and systematic reviews, cranioplasty surgery is reported to restore cranial symmetry with good cosmetic outcomes and neurophysiologically relevant functional outcomes in hundreds of patients. In this review article, we present a number of key issues related to the manufacturing of patient-specific implants, clinical complications, cosmetic outcomes, and newer alternative therapies. While discussing alternative therapeutic treatments for cranioplasty, biomolecules and cellular-based approaches have been emphasized. The current clinical practices in the restoration of cranial defects involve 3D printing to produce patient-specific prefabricated cranial implants, that provide better cosmetic outcomes. Regardless of the advancements in image processing and 3D printing, the complete clinical procedure is time-consuming and requires significant costs. To reduce manual intervention and to address unmet clinical demands, it has been highlighted that automated implant fabrication by data-driven methods can accelerate the design and manufacturing of patient-specific cranial implants. The data-driven approaches, encompassing artificial intelligence (machine learning/deep learning) and E-platforms, such as publicly accessible clinical databases will lead to the development of the next generation of patient-specific cranial implants, which can provide predictable clinical outcomes. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: Cranioplasty is performed to reconstruct cranial defects of patients who have undergone decompressive craniectomy. Cranioplasty surgery improves the aesthetic and functional outcomes of those patients. To meet the clinical demands of cranioplasty surgery, accelerated designing and manufacturing of 3D cranial implants are required. This review provides an overview of biomaterial implants and bone flap manufacturing methods for cranioplasty surgery. In addition, tissue engineering and regenerative medicine-based approaches to reduce clinical complications are also highlighted. The potential use of data-driven computer applications and data-driven artificial intelligence-based approaches are emphasized to accelerate the clinical protocols of cranioplasty treatment with less manual intervention and shorter intraoperative time.

Ultra-Early Cranioplasty versus Conventional Cranioplasty: A Retrospective Cohort Study at an Academic Level 1 Trauma Center

The goal of this study was to ascertain the efficacy, safety, and comparability of ultra-early cranioplasty (CP; defined here as <30 days from the original craniectomy) to conventional cranioplasty (defined here as >30 days from the original craniectomy). A retrospective review of CPs performed at our institution between January 2016 and July 2020 was performed. Craniectomies initially performed at other institutions were excluded. Seventy-seven CPs were included in our study. Ultra-early CP was defined as CP performed within 30 days of craniectomy whereas conventional CP occurred after 30 days. Post-operative wound infection rates, rate of return to the operating room (OR) with or without bone flap removal, operative length, and rate of post-CP hydrocephalus were compared between the two groups. Thirty-nine and 38 patients were included in the ultra-early and conventional CP groups, respectively. The average number of days to CP in the ultra-early group was 17.70 ± 7.75 days compared to 95.70 ± 65.60 days in the conventional group. The mean Glasgow Coma Scale upon arrival to the emergency room was 7.28 ± 3.90 and 6.92 ± 4.14 for the ultra-early and conventional groups, respectively. The operative time was shorter in the ultra-early cohort than that in the conventional cohort (ultra-early, 2.40 ± 0.71 h; conventional, 3.00 ± 1.63 h; p = 0.0336). The incidence of post-CP hydrocephalus was also lower in the ultra-early cohort (ultra-early, 10.3%; conventional, 31.6%; p = 0.026). No statistically significant differences were observed regarding post-operative infection, return to the OR, or bone flap removal. Our study shows that ultra-early CP can significantly reduce the rate of post-CP hydrocephalus, as well as operative time in comparison to conventional CP. However, the timing of CP post-DC should remain a patient-centered consideration.