DOI 10.1016/j.bjps.2024.03.009
Cranioplasty is not required in the reconstruction of small combined scalp and calvarial defects.
Аннотация
BACKGROUND
Treatment of scalp malignancies may include the need for craniectomy. The decision to perform cranioplasty is not straightforward and is frequently subjective. The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical outcomes after reconstruction of complex scalp and calvarial defects by comparing patients with and without cranioplasty.
METHODS
Retrospective review of the clinical records of a consecutive series of patients who underwent scalp soft tissue reconstruction after craniectomy for malignancy or osteoradionecrosis between 2014 and 2022 at Royal Melbourne Hospital was conducted. Demographics, previous treatments, surgical details, and post-operative complications were assessed. Traumatic injuries and decompressive craniectomies were excluded. Minimum follow-up of 6 months.
RESULTS
Thirty-seven patients were included in the study. Indications for surgery included skin malignancies, osteoradionecrosis, or both. There was one reconstructive failure (in the non-cranioplasty group). Infection and metalware exposure were common complications in patients who underwent cranioplasty (38.5%). No patient developed neurological symptoms subsequent to craniectomy. One patient needed revision surgery due to esthetic reasons (cranioplasty group). Transposition flaps were associated with more complications and revision procedures.
CONCLUSION
Combined scalp and calvarial defects pose a difficult reconstructive challenge. Stable soft tissue coverage is more reliably achieved with free flap reconstruction. Cranioplasty is not always mandatory and should be reserved for cases with a very large bony defect or when the defect is located in a cosmetically sensitive area.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.