Preview

Russian journal of neurosurgery

Advanced search

A multidisciplinary approach to skin plastic of skull defects formed after implantation

https://doi.org/10.17650/1683-3295-2019-21-3-58-65

Abstract

At the present time in connection with the growth craniotomies interventions cranioplasties operations is widespread. The introduction of a significant number of heterogeneous implants to restore the integrity of the structures of the skull is accompanied by an increase in the frequency of complications in the area of their installation (up to 34 % of cases), which first and foremost must include the formation of ulcers of the skin and purulent inflammation. The basic principles of surgical treatment of such category of victims now provide implant removal, long-term conservative preparation of wounds and repeated reconstructive intervention in the long term. The article presents an analysis of four clinical observations of successful treatment of patients with defects of the skin of the skull over the implants using a number of methods of combined skin plastics. It is shown that surgical interventions using skin-fascial flaps and free split grafts can prevent implant removal, preserve foreign structures and avoid complications in the early postoperative period.

About the Authors

V. E. Parfenov
Saint Petersburg Research Institute of Emergence Medicine
Russian Federation


E. V. Zinoviev
Saint Petersburg Research Institute of Emergence Medicine
Russian Federation


P. G. Tunimanov
Saint Petersburg Research Institute of Emergence Medicine
Russian Federation


V. V. Soloshenko
Saint Petersburg Research Institute of Emergence Medicine
Russian Federation


Yu. V. Anikin
Saint Petersburg Research Institute of Emergence Medicine
Russian Federation


D. V. Kostyakov
Saint Petersburg Research Institute of Emergence Medicine
Russian Federation


References

1. Mukherjee S., Thakur B., Haq I. Complications of titanium cranioplasty – a retrospective analysis of 174 patients. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2014;156(5):989–98. DOI: 10.1007/s00701-014-2024-x.

2. Lee L., Ker J., Quah B.L. et al. A retrospective analysis and review of an institution’s experience with the complications of cranioplasty. Br J Neurosurg 2013;27(5):629–35. DOI: 10.3109/02688697.2013.815313.

3. Kim S.W., Hwang K.T., Kim J.D., Kim Y.H. Reconstruction of postinfected scalp defects using latissimus dorsi perforator and myocutaneous free flaps. J Craniofac Surg 2012;23(6):1615–9. DOI: 10.1097/SCS. 0b013e31825bd29d.

4. Yoon S.H., Burm J.S., Yang W.Y., Kang S.Y. Vascularized bipedicled pericranial flaps for reconstruction of chronic scalp ulcer occurring after cranioplasty. Arch Plast Surg 2013;40(4):341–7. DOI: 10.5999/aps.2013.40.4.341.

5. Gooch M.R., Gin G.E., Kenning T.J., German J.W. Complications of cranioplasty following decompressive craniectomy: analysis of 62 cases. Neurosurg Focus 2009;26(6):E9. DOI: 10.3171/2009.3.FOCUS0962.

6. Mikami T., Miyata K., Komatsu K. et al. Exposure of titanium implants after cranioplasty: a matter of long-term consequences. Interdiscip Neurosurg 2017;8:64–7.

7. Kwarcinski J., Boughton P., Ruys A. et al. Cranioplasty and craniofacial reconstruction: a review of implant material, manufacturing method and infection risk. Appl Sci 2017;7(3):276.

8. Rish B.L., Dillon J.D., Meirowsky A.M. et al. Cranioplasty: a review of 1030 cases of penetrating head injury. Neurosurgery 1979;4(5):381–5. DOI: 10.1227/ 00006123-197905000-00002.

9. Afifi A., Djohan R.S., Hammert W. et al. Lessons learned reconstructing complex scalp defects using free flaps and a cranioplasty in one stage. J Craniofac Surg 2010;21(4):1205–9. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181e17c1e.

10. Beauchamp K.M., Kashuk J., Moore E.E. et al. Cranioplasty after postinjury decompressive craniectomy: is timing of the essence? J Trauma 2010;69(2):270–4. DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181e491c2.

11. Chun H.J., Yi H.J. Efficacy and safety of early cranioplasty, at least within 1 month. J Craniofac Surg 2011;22(1):203–7. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181f753bd.

12. Tokoro K., Chiba Y., Tsubone K. Late infection after cranioplasty – review of 14 cases. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 1989;29(3):196–201. DOI: 10.2176/nmc.29.196.

13. Yadla S., Campbell P.G., Chitale R. et al. Effect of early surgery, material and method of flap preservation on cranioplasty infections: a systemic review. Neurosurgery 2011;68(4):1124–9. DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e31820a5470.

14. Zins J.E., Langevin C.J., Nasir S. Controversies in skull reconstruction. J Craniofac Surg 2010;21(6):1755–60. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181c34675.

15. Гайдар Б.В., Парфенов В.Е., Свистов Д.В. и др. Становление школы военной нейрохирургии в стенах Военно-медицинской академии. Военно-медицинский журнал 2013;334(12):27–32. [Gaidar B.V., Parfyonov V.E., Svistov D.V. et al. The formation of the school of military neurosurgery of the Military Medical Academy. Voenno-meditsinsky zhurnal = Military Medical Journal 2013;334(12):27–32. (In Russ.)].


Review

For citations:


Parfenov V.E., Zinoviev E.V., Tunimanov P.G., Soloshenko V.V., Anikin Yu.V., Kostyakov D.V. A multidisciplinary approach to skin plastic of skull defects formed after implantation. Russian journal of neurosurgery. 2019;21(3):58-65. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17650/1683-3295-2019-21-3-58-65

Views: 699


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 1683-3295 (Print)
ISSN 2587-7569 (Online)
X