Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32592100›Full record

ArticleNeurosurgical review2021

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.

Alessandro Di Rienzo, Roberto Colasanti, Maurizio Gladi, Mauro Dobran, Martina Della Costanza, Mara Capece, Salvatore Veccia, Maurizio Iacoangeli

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neurosurgical review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. [Application of two-stage operation on free latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap transplantation and skull contour reconstruction in treatment of head titanium mesh exposure with soft tissue infection].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alessandro Di Rienzo *Department of Neurosurgery, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Roberto Colasanti *Department of Neurosurgery, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy. roberto.colasanti@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5026-8089
Maurizio GladiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Mauro DobranDepartment of Neurosurgery, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Martina Della CostanzaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Mara CapeceDepartment of Neurosurgery, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Salvatore VecciaDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Maurizio IacoangeliDepartment of Neurosurgery, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Marche Polytechnic University · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

AdultCraniotomyDebridementFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedPlastic Surgery ProceduresRetrospective StudiesSurgical FlapsSurgical Wound InfectionTime FactorsCranioplastyHydrocephalusInfectionPMMAShuntTitanium mesh

Identifiers

PMID32592100
OpenAlexW3037736896

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.