Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36248178›Full record

ArticleBrain & spine2022

Management of infected hydroxyapatite cranioplasty: Is salvage feasible?

Alessandro Di Rienzo, Roberto Colasanti, Mauro Dobran, Francesco Formica, Martina Della Costanza, Erika Carrassi, Denis Aiudi, Maurizio Iacoangeli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain & spine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Alessandro Di RienzoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Azienda Ospedali Riuniti Ancona, Ancona, Italy.
Roberto ColasantiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Azienda Ospedali Riuniti Ancona, Ancona, Italy.
Mauro DobranDepartment of Neurosurgery, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Azienda Ospedali Riuniti Ancona, Ancona, Italy.
Francesco FormicaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Azienda Ospedali Riuniti Ancona, Ancona, Italy.
Martina Della CostanzaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Azienda Ospedali Riuniti Ancona, Ancona, Italy.
Erika CarrassiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Azienda Ospedali Riuniti Ancona, Ancona, Italy.
Denis AiudiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Azienda Ospedali Riuniti Ancona, Ancona, Italy.
Maurizio IacoangeliDepartment of Neurosurgery, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Azienda Ospedali Riuniti Ancona, Ancona, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The use of hydroxyapatite cranioplasties has grown progressively over the past few decades. The peculiar biological properties of this material make it particularly suitable for patients with decompressive craniectomy where bone reintegration is a primary objective. However, hydroxyapatite infection rates are similar to those of other reconstructive materials. Research question: We investigated if infected hydroxyapatite implants could be saved or not. Materials and methods: We present a consecutive series over a 10-year period of nine patients treated for hydroxyapatite cranioplasty infection. Clinical and radiological data from admission and follow-up, photo and video material documenting the different phases of infection assessment and treatment, and final outcomes were retrospectively reviewed in an attempt to identify the best options and possible pitfalls in a case-by-case decision-making process. Results: Five unilateral and four bifrontal implants became infected. Wound rupture with cranioplasty exposure was the most common presentation. At revision, all implants were ossified, requiring a new craniotomy to clean the purulent epidural collections. The cranioplasty was fully saved in one hemispheric and 2 bifrontal implants and partially saved in the remaining 2 bifrontal implants. A complete cranioplasty removal was needed in the other 4 cases, but immediate cranial reconstruction was possible in 2. Skin defects were covered by free flaps in 3 cases. Four patients underwent adjunctive hyperbaric therapy, which was effective in one case. Discussion and conclusion: In our experience, infected hydroxyapatite cranioplasty management is complex and requires a multidisciplinary approach. Salvage of a hydroxyapatite implant is possible under specific circumstances.

Indexed as

CranioplastyDecompressive craniectomyHydroxyapatiteInfectionShunt

Identifiers

PMID36248178
PMCPMC9560697

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.